Oral Answers to Questions

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Court House (Colchester)

Bob Russell: When he expects work to start on building a new court house at Colchester.

Maria Eagle: Subject to the procurement process and subsequent statutory approvals or planning consents, I anticipate that building works will commence in autumn 2009.

Bob Russell: The saga of the delays associated with the new court house in Colchester has now lasted for more than 10 years—equivalent to the combined duration of two world wars. If that is not Government dithering and incompetence on a grand scale, what description would the Minister give?

Maria Eagle: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might say thank you for the fact that he is about to get a £16.5 million new court house. I am sure that he would not expect Her Majesty's Courts Service to proceed to procurement phases of building new court rooms without having satisfied itself and others that it is good value for money. He will be aware that when Her Majesty's Courts Service was formed in 2004, it inherited many plans from local magistrates courts committees to build courts—far more than could be built. He should be saying thank you to the Government for the fact that his court house is No. 9 on a very long list.

Pleural Plaques

Stephen Hepburn: What the time scale is for the forthcoming consultation on compensation for people with pleural plaques.

Bridget Prentice: The consultation paper on pleural plaques was published on 9 July and the closing date is 1 October. I welcome responses from hon. Members and from all those with an interest in this important issue. We will then aim to publish our response to the consultation in November.

Stephen Hepburn: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, could I use this opportunity, just before the recess, to urge the Government to give a rapid, moral and firm response to the consultation so that pleural plaques victims get the justice that they deserve?

Bridget Prentice: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. Like him, we are concerned about the anxiety experienced by people who have been exposed to dangerous substances such as asbestos. As I said, we will aim to publish our response within a month of receiving responses to the consultation.

Homicide

Ian Lucas: What progress has been made on the review of the law of homicide; and if he will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: Since December, we have been considering recommendations made by the Law Commission in its report, "Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide", and discussing them with stakeholders. That has included having seminars for Members of both Houses of Parliament. I will publish proposals for wider consultation shortly, with draft clauses attached, with a view to introducing legislation in the next Session. However, we intend to keep the mandatory life sentence for murder, as was made clear in the terms of reference at the outset.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, although I am disappointed that in the face of so much opinion about the mandatory life sentence, the Government will not look at that very important issue. Does she not agree that at this stage, 40 years after the abolition of the death penalty, it is time for us to think about whether the term of the mandatory life sentence could be looked at again so that more flexibility could be introduced into the system?

Maria Eagle: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which is shared by many. However, murder is a unique crime of particular moral and social significance, and the mandatory life sentence reflects society's abhorrence of it. Within the mandatory life sentence, of course, each individual case is given a tariff by the judge, who is in the best position to know the circumstances of the case. That gives the kind of flexibility that my hon. Friend suggests is sensible in certain instances.

Drugs (Prisons)

Chris Mole: What steps he is taking to reduce the availability of drugs in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [Official Report, 22 July 2008, Vol. 479, c. 6MC.]

Jack Straw: Since 1997, we have increased investment in drug treatment in prisons tenfold and greatly strengthened enforcement. One indication of the latter is that positive results in mandatory random drug tests have improved from 24 per cent. testing positive 10 or 11 years ago to 9 per cent. There are now 141 intensive drug treatment programmes in 99 prisons. Last week, I published the report of a former chief constable of West Mercia, David Blakey, on what more we had to do. I accepted all 10 of his recommendations. I announced then that we would upgrade our work on corruption and that we would be introducing body orifice security scanner chairs and hand-held mobile telephone blockers into every prison.

Chris Mole: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When I visited HMP Norwich a few years back, it was clear that drugs were coming over the walls inside tennis balls or dead pigeons, and horrifyingly, were being brought in even in the mouths of infants. Given the ingenuity of the suppliers, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to continue mandatory testing in prisons, and to extend orifice scanning and the use of the other tools to which he referred to visitors to prisons as well?

Jack Straw: Yes is the answer. As my hon. Friend indicates, prisoners are adept at using every means that they can to ensure that drugs get into prisons, sometimes by means that are grotesque to imagine, but which take place. That is why, alongside the maintenance of mandatory drug testing, which, three years ago, was found by the Office for National Statistics to be "robust"—in its words, not mine—I asked David Blakey to conduct a review. His report, with its 10 recommendations, is about how we build on the strengths of the current system for preventing drugs from coming into prison, to enhance and improve it.

Andrew MacKay: As one in five men reporting drug use admit that they started taking drugs in prison, we still clearly have a real problem. Would the Secretary of State consider stating that no prisoners should be released early from their sentence unless they are clear of drugs? Would that not be a great incentive?

Jack Straw: Whether that figure is correct or not—self-reporting of levels of drug abuse, particularly by prisoners, tends to be rather imaginative to say the least—there is no doubt that we have a drug problem in prisons, which I do not underestimate. In the past 11 years, we have sought to strengthen the means of enforcement and greatly to improve treatment. I will certainly think about whether the sort of incentive—such as it would be—that the right hon. Gentleman mentions would work. In respect of indeterminate sentence prisoners and others who have to apply for parole, their behaviour in prison, and their readiness to undertake treatment programmes and comply with them, is one consideration in the determination of their release.

Anne Main: In March 2007, I was told that 24,000 prisoners would receive treatment via the integrated drug treatment system programme, and that £6 million would be invested in the psycho-social elements of the IDTS. Have both those targets been met?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I may say, very gently, to the hon. Lady, I have told hon. Members before that I do not expect supplementary questions to be read out from a note.

Jack Straw: If I may say to the hon. Lady through you, Mr. Speaker, I will write to her and place the answer in the Library, because I do not have those figures in my head as I speak. My apologies.

Graham Stuart: Does the Secretary of State agree that programmes to get people off drugs in prisons are undermined when so many people are still taking drugs alongside the prisoners involved in those programmes? He mentioned treatment, so does he think it acceptable that the chief inspector of prisons has said that prisoners on drugs
	"could be transferred having barely completed detoxification"
	because
	"as population pressure increased, it was difficult to match prisoner need to programme provision."?
	Surely that is an indictment of the actual delivery of programmes in prisons today.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just to let Ministers know, the hon. Gentleman is reading out a quote from an individual, which is different.

Jack Straw: We have got the level of enforcement up, and treatment as well, but none of us should be complacent about the continuing problem of drugs in prison because 55 per cent. of defendants who go to prison have a drug problem, and in some local prisons that figure is as high as 80 per cent. A great deal of our crime is drug related, so we continually have to strengthen enforcement and treatment, which is what we are doing.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, there is churn in the prison estate because of pressure on numbers, which is something I regret. We have increased prison numbers by well over a third in the last 11 years, which is the fastest rate of increase since the war, and we continue to expand the prison population. Meanwhile, because we are tough on crime, the number of defendants who are, rightly, sent to prison continues to rise.

Edward Garnier: In 2007, the last year for which information is available, the Ministry of Justice announced that 5,528 drug seizures took place in the prison estate in England and Wales. Of those, only 1,641 were reported to the police, and only 304 prosecutions were brought in respect of the possession of those illegal drugs. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if we are trying to reduce the dealing, consumption and existence of illegal drugs in the prison estate, it is simply not good enough if prosecutions are not brought for what is a crime outside and inside the prison estate?

Jack Straw: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that we need to be tough on the introduction of drugs into prisons because it is obviously an offence in prison as much it is outside. However, although we want police and prosecutors charging and prosecuting in all appropriate cases, he knows that there are other means whereby prisoners can be brought to justice through the use of independent adjudicators, which is often a swifter method of punishment because prisoners who are found guilty can have days added to their prison sentence more quickly. Although charging and prosecution can be considered in each case, there are clear sanctions, which I first tightened in 1999—I wish them to be tightened again—against visitors who abuse the regime.

Shoplifting

Anne McIntosh: How many people were serving a custodial sentence for shoplifting in each of the last three years.

David Hanson: The number of persons sentenced and given immediate custody for shoplifting in each of the past three years for which we have statistics are: 2004—13,339; 2005—12,096, and 2006—11,166.

Anne McIntosh: Given the fact that fixed penalty notices are more likely than not to be issued as a sentence for someone prosecuted successfully for shoplifting, will the Minister support my ten-minute Bill, which is on the Order Paper for Tuesday, to replace fixed penalty notices with custodial sentences? It has the support of the Federation of Small Businesses and many other business organisations. Shoplifting damages businesses and retail companies throughout the country and we need the strongest possible penalties. Will the Government be tough on shoplifting and tough on the causes of shoplifting?

David Hanson: We certainly will be tough on shoplifting and, indeed, the causes of shoplifting. The hon. Lady knows that in 1997, the last year in which a Conservative Government were in power, only 12 per cent. of people went to prison for shoplifting. Last year, under the Labour Government, 19 per cent. of people convicted went to prison for shoplifting.
	Fixed penalty notices are important—the police have used them and welcomed them, and they have helped tackle many minor shoplifting crimes. I will certainly reflect on the hon. Lady's Bill, as she knows that the Government will, but I emphasise that the Government are committed to tackling shoplifting as a key issue in the prevention of crime.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister has alluded to the numbers prosecuted in each of the past three years. Has he any indication of the rise in organised criminal gangs involved in shoplifting? Is it not the case that we need to crack down on repeat offenders and organised criminal gangs, who not only break the law but drive up prices for all legitimate and law-abiding consumers?

David Hanson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that criminal gangs who get involved in shoplifting should be tackled. Shoplifting is a crime that has an impact on all members of society because when those goods leave the shop, ordinary law-abiding citizens pay the cost on their purchases. In the past three years, for example, the total number of shoplifting offences whose perpetrators have been brought to justice increased from 112,000 in 2004 to 142,362 in 2006. The Government have a major drive to bring people to justice for shoplifting, as the increase in custody and fixed penalty notices has shown.

Humfrey Malins: But is not the real problem that a huge percentage of our shoplifters are heroin addicts who steal the goods to sell them to get their next heroin shot? Rather than being pleased about sending too many people to prison, is there not an argument for increasing the provision of drugs courts and trying to ensure that those people, who are often victims as much as criminals, get the treatment that they need rather than the great expense of prison?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman knows that I very much agree with that approach. As well as taking people who are persistent offenders into custody, which has been done, we also need to look at what we do about the alcohol and drug abuse that is driving people to that shoplifting. He will know that draft guidelines have been produced by the Sentencing Guidelines Council to look into how we can deal not only with potential custody but sentences that include community-based penalties to address drug and alcohol issues. The draft guidelines are open for consultation, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman responds. I suspect that his response may be slightly different from that of those on his Front Bench, but also that it will have great benefits.

Eleanor Laing: No, my hon. Friend's response is not different from ours on the Front Bench, because I entirely agree with what he said. If the Minister takes shoplifting seriously—it is not just shoplifting; it is theft, which is a very serious crime—why do the Government choose to leave that crime and other crimes against business out of the British crime survey? Shoplifting is not a victimless crime; it is a crime against business, and people who own businesses and work in businesses suffer from it. With shoplifting left out of the British crime survey, is it any wonder that people have no confidence in the Government's ability to enforce the law?

David Hanson: The hon. Lady will recall that her Government established the British crime survey. We have widened its scope, although I am always happy to take representations about what should be included. The facts are these: more people are being brought to justice for shoplifting than ever before; a greater proportion of people are going into custody than under the previous Conservative Government; and we are trying to tackle some of the longer-term issues that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) mentioned to do with drug and alcohol abuse, which is one of the key drivers of shoplifting crime. I do take shoplifting seriously. It is theft, and it is a loss that imposes a cost on the ordinary, decent taxpayer who shops in those shops and pays extra costs for goods because of the loss through leakages and theft. Shoplifting is something that we need to tackle, and I will happily look into the suggestions that she has made.

Court Fees (Child Protection)

Julian Brazier: What plans he has to consult local authorities on the effect of new court fees for child protection cases.

Andrew Robathan: What plans he has to consult local authorities on the effect of new court fees for child protection cases.

Bridget Prentice: My Department has made a full cash transfer to cover the costs to local authorities. However, we will be monitoring the overall impact of the recent reforms in this area, the better to understand how they are working. That will include monitoring the numbers of cases issued, the stages at which they are resolved and, consequently, the total value of fees payable.

Julian Brazier: Does the Minister accept, however, that the sharp drop in care proceedings involving such vulnerable children is in part due to the twentyfold increase in fees, for which the funding is not ring-fenced? Her right hon. Friend, the then Minister, said that what was then the Adoption and Children Bill would
	"help to cut harmful delays...through timetabling of court proceedings."—[ Official Report, 20 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 98.]
	She is now the Home Secretary. What has that provision done, other than cause more delays and in some cases prevent the initiation of proceedings, for those very vulnerable children?

Bridget Prentice: First, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that the drop in the number of cases going through the courts is due to the fees. In fact, the drop in the number of cases going to court happened before the new fees were implemented, which happened only in May this year. We are looking to see what the reasons behind that are; one reason may be that people were gearing up for the publication of the public law outline, which encourages local authorities to use other means to look after and protect children, rather than taking them through the court system.

Andrew Robathan: Could the Minister confirm that the money granted to local authorities is not ring-fenced? If there is a drop in the number of court cases being brought forward, could she comment on the impact that that might be having on the accountability and transparency of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which is an organisation raised with me the whole time by constituents who are very unhappy about its work?

Bridget Prentice: A total of £40 million is being given to local authorities this year, which will also be given to them next year and the following year. That money is the total allocated, should every case go right through the whole system to the end of court proceedings. In other words, that amount is more than I would expect the local authorities will need if they use other possibilities to deal with the children, rather than taking them through the courts. By monitoring the process, we will be able to see exactly how much money local authorities spend on it. I should also point out to the hon. Gentleman that local authorities take umbrage at the suggestion that they would not use the court system for financial reasons, when they see, rightly, that their statutory duty to protect the child is paramount.

David Kidney: Can my hon. Friend assure local authorities that in return for these massive increases they can expect fewer delays when the courts and CAFCASS start proceedings?

Bridget Prentice: Yes, they should be able to expect fewer delays. The whole point of the public law outline is to streamline the system and to encourage local authorities and other agencies to look at alternative ways of protecting the child before going to the courts. In that way, both CAFCASS and the courts should respond far more quickly in dealing with the vulnerable child—that, after all, is who the whole system is supposed to be there to protect.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister feel that the new court fees might be prejudicial to the interests and rights of natural parents? She knows of my interest in that matter in protection cases, but does she feel that the natural parents, whose position is of huge importance, might be prejudiced by the new fees?

Bridget Prentice: No, I do not think that the position of the natural parent will be prejudiced by the new fees. The new fees are for local authorities; individual parents are, of course, protected financially in other ways. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that it is important that parents are given a voice in the court system. I hope that the new public law outline will ensure that they are heard and that the wider family is also used and supported in the protection of young children.

Henry Bellingham: We are talking about a staggering increase in court fees of 2,900 per cent. Is the Minister aware that in London, where a pilot study was carried out, there has been a 40 per cent. drop in the number of cases? In Kent, there has been an 80 per cent. drop. Does she therefore accept that councils' decisions to initiate child care cases are being influenced by these court fee increases? Is this not yet another example of gross incompetence on the part of Ministers, at a time when the physical abuse of children is on the up? Does the Minister agree that there really is a danger that abused children could suffer or even die because of these changes?

Bridget Prentice: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to reflect on his remarks and regret that he has put his question in such a way. We are talking about the most vulnerable children in our society and we should talk about them in a way that means that we will do our very best to ensure that they are properly protected. Inflammatory language does not help.
	I have spoken to London local authorities and to the judiciary in Kent about the drop in cases, and they cannot give an absolutely concrete reason for that. One reason that London local authorities suggested was that they are putting far more effort and resources into supporting families in the community. Indeed, many of them are very proud of that and they are frankly outraged at the suggestion that they are leaving children in danger. They are making much more effort to avoid care proceedings altogether, which is one of the aims of the statutory guidelines. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will talk to some of those local authorities and to the judiciary to find out exactly what is being done to protect the vulnerable.

Coroners' System

John Barrett: When he plans to bring forward legislation to reform the coroners' system.

Bridget Prentice: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the coroners and death certification Bill was put into the draft legislative programme in May. I look forward to working with him and others to ensure that it makes its passage through Parliament in the new Session. In the meantime, I have put in place a number of measures that we can use without legislation to move some of these issues forward.

John Barrett: The families of Scottish constituents and Scottish soldiers who have died abroad must go through a complex procedure, particularly when fatal accident inquiries are involved. With the Cullen review now in progress, what discussions is the Minister having to ensure that the families of Scots who have died abroad are not subject to undue delays during what is a difficult time for them?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I regret the fact that the families of Scottish military who have died abroad have to come to England in order to take part in inquests. While I understand that the Cullen review is going ahead in Scotland, I also hope that the Scottish Parliament will seriously consider making inquest procedure applicable in Scotland so that Scottish families will be able to use it. People may not necessarily be aware that there is no inquest procedure in Scotland, which I think is something to be regretted.

Mark Durkan: May I thank the Minister for her reply? Given that the coroners Bill will be going forward only in the next Session, would the Government think better about pushing ahead with part 6 of the current Counter-Terrorism Bill, which could make sweeping provisions in respect of coroners' courts, giving Ministers the power to sack both coroners and jurors?

Bridget Prentice: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but may I say that it is for my colleagues in the Home Office to respond in detail to those issues. If he puts that question to them, I am sure that he will receive a reasonable response.

Peter Bone: A few months ago, I had a harrowing meeting with the parents of someone who lost their life while in police custody. They were very unhappy with the coroners' system as they believed that the information provided before the coroner's hearing was very weak and that not all the relevant evidence had been provided. Before the Bill comes forward in the next Session, can anything be done to beef up the system so that interested parties can acquire more information before they attend the inquest?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The most important part of the coroners Bill is the principle of putting bereaved families at the heart of the system, which means ensuring that they get all the information they need beforehand. In some areas, support teams take the families through what the procedure will be; indeed, good coroners do that as a matter of course. We are publishing a draft charter for bereaved families, which is currently out to consultation, and it will include many of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. If he has any further specific questions, I would be more than happy to respond to them.

Madeleine Moon: The proposed Bill will give extended powers to coroners to carry out further investigations. Has my hon. Friend considered the usefulness of psychological autopsies, particularly where, as in my constituency, there have been clusters of suicides? They would help to provide a clearer picture of exactly what lay behind the problems so that we could target the relevant services to solve them.

Bridget Prentice: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close interest in this issue, and we extend our condolences to the families of the young people involved in those recent tragedies in her constituency. My hon. Friend has raised the matter of psychological autopsies before and I have asked my officials to look further into it. If we can come up with a means to make this a useful part of the coroner's remit, I will come back to her with further information.

Private Sector Prisons

David Taylor: What recent representations he has received on standards of prisoner safety in private sector prisons.

David Hanson: Over the past year, I have received a number of submissions concerning the contracted estate.

David Taylor: One of our nation's 11 private finance initiative prisons is Global Solutions Ltd. Rye Hill in the east midlands, whose safety regime allowed Wayne Reid to be stabbed to death in his cell by three fellow inmates in 2005. How is the Minister tackling such unsafe and unstable establishments, floundering in perverse frameworks that impose 50 penalty points for weapon discovery—ensuring cursory searches—but a single point for self-harm or suicide, thus inverting normal, rational public service values? Aren't private prisons getting away with murder?

David Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Wayne Reid did indeed die in his cell at HMP Rye Hill in April 2005 and two individuals were subsequently convicted of his murder. I regret the fact that Wayne died in those circumstances and I await a letter from the coroner who recently completed the inquest into the death. I expect the coroner to forward a letter outlining some issues for the Government to examine in detail. Together with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), I have taken a keen interest in the performance of GSL in Rye Hill over the past 12 months. We will continue to look at the performance of Rye Hill and GSL and see what lessons can be learned from the coroner's verdict on Wayne Reid's tragic and possibly avoidable death.

Tony Baldry: Global Solutions also has a responsibility for immigration removal centres. Is the Minister satisfied that he has responsibility for prisons and that the Home Office has responsibility for immigration removal centres? Is not it the basic fact that if people are detained by the state, there should be an expectation on the part of all of us that there is a reasonable standard of care? We have had repeated fires at Campsfield House, which impact not only on the immigration removal centre, but on the whole community, its fear of crime and on the ability to police. There are all sorts of other consequences as well.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will know that the immigration removal centres are not my direct responsibility, but there is a common inspection regime across the estate. Obviously, I discuss a range of issues, including how we manage the centres and what support we can give, on a regular basis with my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration, who is responsible for immigration removal centres. Indeed, the Prison Service and staff from the prison estate give support on training and back-up to people in the Border and Immigration Agency estate on a regular basis. However, I shall certainly reflect on the hon. Gentleman's points.

Employment (Prisoners)

Ben Chapman: What steps he is taking to assist prisoners in gaining employment on release.

David Hanson: The Government have made the employment of offenders one of their key priorities. Our proposals for getting more offenders into employment are outlined in the document "Reducing Re-offending through Skills and Employment: Next Steps" published at the end of 2006 and in the prison policy update paper, published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice in January this year.

Ben Chapman: As far as I am concerned, once the sentence is served, the slate is clean. At what is the most vulnerable point of an ex-prisoner's life, will my hon. Friend assure me that all possible co-ordinated assistance is given to ex-prisoners seeking employment so that they turn towards work and away from reoffending?

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. One of the key issues in helping to prevent people from reoffending is employment. One of the key drivers for that has to be engagement with employers outside prison, so that people can go through the gate in a positive way to employment on release.
	There are some very positive schemes in my hon. Friend's area of Merseyside which deal with just that involvement. We have a number of initiatives in the north-west, including with the Northwest Regional Development Agency, which offers support officers in 10 prisons, helping to build a successful exit-to-work project, supported by private sector employers across Merseyside in particular. It is important that we have that through-the-gate activity, and we are looking strongly at how we can engage with employers, not just in the north-west, but elsewhere to develop that still further.

Patrick Cormack: If we truly believe that the punishment is sending someone to prison and that the aim of prison is rehabilitation, then all the money spent on prisons is wasted if we do not have a comprehensive aftercare service. Many people who come out of prison are not looked after and have nowhere to go. As a consequence, many of them reoffend, some deliberately. This is a shocking state of affairs.

David Hanson: I again accept those concerns, because we in government share them. We are currently looking, with fellow Ministers, at how we can help and support people to get access to proper and effective housing, to employment and to continuing drugs services, very often at the time that hon. Members have mentioned—when those people go through the gate outside into the community. It is important that prisons serve a rehabilitation function, and both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I are concerned to ensure that they do that, particularly in relation to raising skills—employability skills and literacy and numeracy skills—in prison to help people to get employment when they return to the community, as the vast majority of prisoners will ultimately do.

Gisela Stuart: Will the Minister have a look at the scheme run by the National Grid? It has been going for a number of years and there are extremely low reoffending rates as a consequence. It involves a big company working with smaller supply companies. Will he look at its success, and the lessons that have been learned, to ensure that they are disseminated to other large companies?

David Hanson: Indeed. My hon. Friend may not be aware that I visited Reading prison yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) and National Grid to discuss ways of bringing about integrated employment. National Grid, a private-sector company, is involving its suppliers and contractors in efforts to provide key employment, and is helping Reading prison—in this instance—to give prisoners incentives to meet training standards to a level that will enable them to be offered employment outside. We are continually looking at that model to establish whether we can build on or improve it, and yesterday, with Mary Harris, we spent a very productive afternoon at Reading prison.

John Bercow: Given that over 60 per cent. of the 11,000 people in our young offenders institutions suffer from speech, language and communication impairments that prevent them from gaining effective access to education and training courses, does the Minister agree that, following the publication of the youth crime action plan, it is vital for local commissioners to put together detailed, comprehensive and funded plans for the delivery of speech and language services to young offenders so that they have a better chance of obtaining sustainable jobs well into the future?

David Hanson: I certainly agree, and I commend the work done by the hon. Gentleman for my colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families on that very issue. He will know that the problems relating to literacy and numeracy are acute, particularly among young offenders. We must drive up literacy and numeracy levels—which are well below those that we would expect of people outside young offenders institutions—to enable young offenders both to gain opportunities for employment and to manage their day-to-day existence. Their chaotic lifestyles often result not just from difficult backgrounds, but from a lack of educational opportunity.

Jim Devine: Many discharged prisoners suffer from mental health problems. What form of rehabilitation and psychiatric support are we offering?

David Hanson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned my noble Friend Lord Bradley to examine mental health issues in prisons and young offenders institutions. We need to consider not only what should be done to improve services in prison, but which people are going to prison who might be better served elsewhere. I hope that Lord Bradley's report will help us to involve the national health service in England, Scotland and Wales, as well as other agencies, in providing aftercare and treatment for people with severe mental health problems while they are in the prison system. In many instances mental health problems lead to offending behaviour and, in tackling such behaviour, we should bear in mind that it is as much a mental health as a criminal justice problem.

Simon Burns: May I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow)? Does the Minister accept that, important as it is for more help to be provided in the education service for prisoners suffering from dyslexia, dyspraxia and other learning difficulties while they are in prison, it is also important to enhance and improve their opportunities to find employment when they leave? Will he ensure that the help that they receive in prison does not automatically stop the moment they leave and re-enter society?

David Hanson: In the spirit of cross-party co-operation on these matters, I will agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he will recall, I visited Chelmsford prison with him last July, and also met a delegation from the prison with him earlier this year to discuss the issues that he has raised.
	Continuity of care is extremely important. We must ensure that we do not simply throw people out of the door and allow them to fall back into behaviour that is damaging both for them and for the communities from which they have come. We need to establish a through-the-gate offender management service linking probation with prison, which is what we are trying to do through the merger of the Prison Service and the probation service in the overarching National Offender Management Service.

Clive Efford: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing more flexibility in the home curfew system when people are offered employment? A young constituent of mine has been prevented from being considered for home curfew because he is not due for release until next March. However, he has been offered a job, and his family are willing to support him. The provision of more flexibility would enable us to free up spaces in institutions while also giving people an opportunity to turn their lives around.

David Hanson: I will happily look at the case that my hon. Friend mentions if he wants to draw it to my attention. It is important that we not only take risk into account, but that we look at how we deal with employment opportunities.

Court Reports

Philip Davies: What recent representations he has received from local newspapers on the cost of court reports.

Jack Straw: I have received a number of representations about charging for court reports from right hon. and hon. Members, from local newspapers in Yorkshire, Hertfordshire and Sunderland and from the Newspaper Society and the Society of Editors. In the light of those representations and having considered the matter carefully, I have decided that, subject to certain common-sense conditions, that information should be provided to newspapers for free. That reverses the policy that has stood since 1989.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for that U-turn on those court charges. I understand why the Government were so keen to stop local readers of newspapers from accessing the information that court sentences are now so pathetically lenient. I hope that he will give a commitment to ensure not only that reports will be free from now on, but that they will stay free for ever.

Jack Straw: It is a reversal of a policy that was implemented originally by the Conservative party, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's response comes into the category of slightly churlish. I commend to him the response of his colleague, the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main). I was unaware of that policy, which I found unacceptable, until she raised it with me in oral questions at the end of April. I followed it up, I talked to her and decided that it was unacceptable. I have now announced that it has been changed.

Anne Snelgrove: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that excellent decision? Local newspapers such as the  Swindon Advertiser are the backbone of local democracy and it is important that we get those reports in our newspapers.

Jack Straw: The  Swindon Advertiser is a great newspaper. It is not quite as great as the  Lancashire Telegraph, the world's most important newspaper. My hon. Friend, with approbation from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), makes the important point that local and regional newspapers are the backbone of our democracy. It is important that we should do everything we can to support them.

Topical Questions

Nigel Evans: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jack Straw: The Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and I have today published the youth crime action plan. That is a comprehensive response to youth crime, building on our reforms in the past 11 years. It spans tough enforcement, early prevention and support to keep young people out of trouble and to help young victims of crime.

Nigel Evans: That is topical, because I want to ask a question about that matter. The youth crime action plan refers to the fact that there will be more knife referral projects, which will mean visits to A and E departments in order to see the impact of knife wounds. On Sunday, when the Home Secretary was asked whether that meant visits to hospitals by offenders to see victims, she said, "It does." Yesterday, she reversed that position. Does the Home Secretary know the difference between her A and E and her elbow? As the position changes every day, what is the policy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I reiterate that topical questions should be very snappy.

Jack Straw: It is no good the hon. Gentleman making that criticism of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which is quite uncalled for, when he cannot distinguish between the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary. The distinction, I would have thought, is obvious. I sort of gathered that he was in favour of our youth crime action plan, which is good. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he and I share not only a police force that is rated top in the country, but most of a police division that does extremely well. There have already been examples, for example, in the Lewisham youth offending team area, where offenders are taken not to see the victims—the Home Secretary was never suggesting that—but to meet consultants and others who deal with the victims of violent crime.

Alun Michael: Given the current flurry of concern about incidents of violence, does my right hon. Friend agree that every accident and emergency unit in the country ought to learn from the success in Cardiff arising out of the work of Professor Jon Shepherd, a specialist in the accident and emergency unit? He analysed clinically how, where and why violent incidents took place and then worked with the local authority and the police to identify what had gone on, which has resulted in Cardiff becoming the safest city of its cohort, rather than one of the more dangerous. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to get those principles applied everywhere in the country?

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I repeat my earlier message?

Jack Straw: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Professor Jonathan Shepherd has done pioneering work, although let me also say that one violent crime—one knife crime—is one too many. He continues to publish important research looking at a large sample of admissions for violence to A and E departments over the last eight years. It shows a year-by-year reduction in the number of people being admitted as victims of crime to A and E departments across England and Wales.

Nick Herbert: It is not surprising that the Government have failed to deliver an oral statement on the youth crime action plan, as they were still cobbling it together yesterday. We have already had the respect action plan, the youth taskforce action plan, the crime reduction and drugs strategy action plan, the youth alcohol action plan, the violent crime action plan and the fighting violent crime together action plan. When will the Justice Secretary understand that people do not want more last-minute Government action plans, but that what they want is action?

Jack Straw: That was snappy too, Mr. Speaker. What the public understand is that as a result of the action the Labour Government have taken over the past 11 years, we have become the first Government since the war to see a reduction in crime, rather than an increase. Every Conservative Government since the war presided over an increase in crime, and the last Administration saw a doubling in crime. We have seen a consistent reduction in crime including—according to entirely independent research by Cardiff university into A and E department admissions, and according to the British crime survey that the Conservatives established but that we have enhanced—very significant reductions in violent crime. None of us underestimate the current problem of knife crime in certain areas. That is why we have taken action, as the Home Secretary has done by producing the youth crime action plan, which builds on the shambles of the youth justice system—so-called—that we inherited in 1997.

Nick Herbert: That was 10 years ago.

Jack Straw: Yes, it was 10 years ago, and the system was an utter shambles, which we have reformed and improved so that youth crime has come down. We have built on that, and we have also taken action in respect of knife crime in eight specific areas.

Nick Herbert: The Government's impact assessment on this plan is also published today. I have a copy with me. It asks what policy options have been considered. Option 1 is:
	"Do nothing to tackle youth crime".
	Option 2 is:
	"Develop a comprehensive and co-ordinated...package of...options".
	That is the preferred option, so perhaps that is a start. However, in the last week, three more young people have lost their lives in knife attacks. After a decade in office, all the Justice Secretary can offer is yet another apology and yet another crime plan of recycled announcements and lazy gimmicks. Will he confirm that the Government were still amending the youth crime action plan yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but although it is not for the Speaker to keep interrupting, let me say again that the facility of topical questions is for Back Benchers. Front Benchers are taking the opportunity to come in at this time, whereas before they did so during the tabled questions. There should not be speeches of this nature.

Jack Straw: The plan has been printed. It was printed yesterday and, as far as I know, no amendments were made yesterday. Proofreading changes may have been made, but that is in the nature of these things.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) seems to be implying that should there ever be a Conservative Government, there will be no knife crime and no violent murders. May I say to him that that is a rash and immature pledge to make? I am deeply sorry about any crimes of violence, as I am about any crimes. What we are seeking to do—by strengthening the way in which the whole criminal justice system works and not least by strengthening the support we give to the police and those dealing with crimes against, and by, youngsters—is to ensure that there are many fewer examples of this kind of crime and that many more of those who perpetrate such crimes are brought to justice.

Kerry McCarthy: I have received a letter from the Parole Board regarding my constituent, Ransford Stober, whose parole was revoked 15 months ago and who is still waiting for a Parole Board hearing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a delay is completely unacceptable, and can he tell me what he is doing to speed up the Parole Board's activities?

Jack Straw: I am aware of delays, not least in cases such as the one that my hon. Friend raises. We are doing a great deal to speed up the system. I am afraid that a couple of years ago, and last year, the Parole Board received an unexpected number of applications relating to those on indeterminate sentences, but we are taking a lot of action, and I shall certainly talk to her about this particular case.

David Howarth: There are some good ideas in the youth crime action plan, including the extension of restorative justice and more early intervention, for which there is real evidence. Can the Justice Secretary confirm that none of the Scared Straight ideas trailed by the Home Secretary over the weekend come into the plan at all? That is a good idea, because such ideas do not work and they make things worse. Can he say what evidence there is to suggest that the ideas in the plan about making more public the punishment of youths will work to reduce reoffending?

Jack Straw: What my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was talking about—for example, paralleling what has already taken place in the Lewisham youth offending team, where the offender is confronted with the consequences of their offending—is at the heart of systems of restorative justice, which the hon. Gentleman, I and the whole House applaud. So, I do not understand the point —[Interruption.] They are not different. The whole plan, which builds on the reforms that we have been making to the youth justice system over the past 11 years, is designed, even more, to ensure that youth crime decreases and that more of the perpetrators are dealt with.
	On publicity, my view is that, particularly for the older young offenders, there is a case for a greater public focus. I have seen such an approach working in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), for example. Publicity about youngsters aged 16 and 17 who have received antisocial behaviour orders has, as it should have, a salutary and deterrent effect.

Mary Creagh: In March, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), announced that she would be rejecting the recommendations of a two-year study by the Law Commission to reform the law to offer protection for cohabiting couples, as has happened in Scotland. Given that there are 2 million cohabiting couples in England and Wales, and that, commonly, they believe the misconception—the fallacy—that there is such a thing as common law marriage, what protections does she offer mostly vulnerable women and their children on the breakdown of cohabiting relationships?

Bridget Prentice: I have discussed this issue with my hon. Friend; we had a very useful discussion on it, when I explained to her that our decision was to wait to see how the Scottish system rolled out and what consequences there might be in England and Wales as a result of that. In the meantime, we are doing more work on ensuring that people are aware of their rights and obligations, whether or not they are cohabitees. We will continue to do that work, so that people understand the choices that they make.

Simon Hughes: Given that everybody agrees that, tragically, knife crime is now at the top of the concerns of all families with teenagers and young adults the length and breadth of the country, will the Justice Secretary tell us what the courts are doing now to maximise the chance of convicting the guilty and to ensure that the sentences passed are effective in preventing reoffending and in deterring others from picking up knives and taking them out with them?

Jack Straw: The maximisation of conviction rates in the courts is a matter for the judicial process. If I may say so, the Liberal Democrats have not been hugely helpful in recent years in ensuring that—while we guarantee that the innocent are acquitted—we shift the balance against those who are plainly guilty but try to use technical means to avoid conviction. On the issue of sentences, the President of the Court of Appeal—now the Lord Chief Justice elect, Sir Igor Judge—has spelled out that tough and appropriate sentences will be given for knife crimes, even if the knife is not used.

Andrew George: I am afraid that there is nothing snappy about the management of those who are known to be a threat to the most vulnerable in society, especially Gary Chester-Nash, about whom the Ministry produced a report recently. He was known to be a violent offender and a serious threat, especially to the most vulnerable, but on his release from prison he was able to travel 300 miles from the London area to my constituency, despite having a unique national antisocial behaviour order. There he murdered Jean Bowditch. Her widower, Mike Bowditch, remains angry at the fact that, despite many inquiries into the case, no one has been found to be responsible for the handling of this man, who was known to be a serious offender. Has the Minister anything to say that I can report back to my constituent to reassure him that the system is capable of managing such serious offenders?

Maria Eagle: I begin by expressing our sympathy to the relatives of Mrs. Jean Bowditch for the loss that they suffered when she was murdered by Gary Chester-Nash. The hon. Gentleman raises important issues. The fact that we needed to ensure that we learned the lessons of this especially awful case meant that we had a full serious case review by the strategic management board of the London multi-agency public protection arrangements, and that we followed that up by asking the chief inspector of probation services to carry out a further full inspection to examine to what extent the recommendations made by the report had been implemented. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the chief inspector has just published his report, "On the Right Road", and it suggests that more remains to be done. He has made some recommendations and we will try to ensure that the further recommendations made by the chief inspector are all implemented.
	In respect of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, it is impossible for any Member of Parliament to take away the hurt and pain caused by being the relative of a victim of a murder of this kind, but I am always happy to meet hon. Members about such issues and would be happy to do so in this case.

Jessica Morden: With the coroners Bill coming up, what discussions has the Ministry had about doing more to accommodate the needs of Muslim communities? Because of the need to bury the deceased as soon as possible, I often hear concerns from the Welsh Muslim community that the intervention of the coroner in non-suspicious deaths can be time-consuming and distressing. What more can be done about that?

Jack Straw: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has raised. It is a concern not only to members of the Muslim community, but to members of the Jewish community. In Greater Manchester, the coroners, led by the Bolton coroner, have developed a good local protocol that means that, in cases that are regarded as forensic, relatives can choose post mortem by MRI scanner, rather than by intrusive post-mortem methods. That ensures that the post mortem is much swifter and can be quickly followed by certification and burial. I am in discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), about how we can see that practice rolled out across the country.

Points of Order

Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, you had occasion to reprimand the Home Secretary because she sought to make a statement at topical questions. You told her that if she wanted to make a statement, she should come to this House in the normal way. Today, the Government have published their youth crime strategy, and it is inconceivable that even this Government should publish a document to which they attach such importance without making an oral statement in the House. Have you had any indication of when we might expect such a statement? Will it be later today, tomorrow or Thursday, or is the Home Secretary so embarrassed by the fiascos of the past couple of days that she can no longer face the House?

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have said on consecutive days, may I ask that you refer the whole question of topical questions to the Procedure Committee? The procedure is clearly not working as some would have hoped and is being abused by certain Ministers of the Crown. That is a very unsatisfactory situation.

Mr. Speaker: We are almost getting to the stage where the Chair is being drawn into the argument. Yesterday, I gently reminded the Home Secretary that she could have made a statement, but I go no further than that. From time to time, I have to tell Back Benchers not to make speeches, so it cuts both ways. I will say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to Sir Patrick that Ministers come to make statements to the House and the Speaker does not bring them to the House to make speeches or statements, other than when there is an urgent question. It is up to the Home Secretary or any other Minister of the Crown to decide when they want to come to make a statement.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the weight that you put on the accuracy of ministerial answers to the House. On 1 July, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), the Minister for Local Government, who is in the Chamber this afternoon, said that the Department for Communities and Local Government had
	"made no estimate of the likely costs or savings that would be incurred if Gloucestershire was to become a unitary authority."—[ Official Report, 1 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 794W.]
	Unfortunately, yesterday, his fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), cast doubt on the accuracy of that answer in a radio interview. Has either Minister indicated to you an intention to come to the House and put on record which statement is accurate?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I know where the Minister is sitting—I know him well, so the hon. Gentleman does not need to point. It is up to Ministers what replies they give. From time to time, Ministers might give diverse responses. That is up to them, but it is nothing to do with me and is not a matter for a point of order.

Jack Straw: Further to the point of order about topical questions, Mr. Speaker. I shall not touch on the issue of oral statements, but will you confirm that when the Modernisation Committee reported to the House about topical questions, part of its recommendation—as I recall, although I might be wrong—was that Ministers should open topical questions with a short statement of 50 words or so? That is what Ministers have sought to do.

Mr. Speaker: I remember when the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord High Chancellor, as he is now, was Leader of the House and we used to have cosy talks in the Speaker's study. He was the person who told me of the great value of topical questions and sold me the idea, saying that it would give Back Benchers the opportunity to get in.

Andrew MacKinlay: I'm happy with it, anyway.

Mr. Speaker: If Mr. Mackinlay, whose grandfather came from Springburn, is happy, that suits me. Yes, a Minister makes a statement in response to the first question—that is fine—but when several statements come up afterwards that is a concern for me. The regulars in the Chamber will note that I have run topical questions well over the time in order to get Back Benchers in, because I am not going to be unfair to Back Benchers. Here endeth the lesson.

Press Complaints Commission (Breaches of Code of Practice)

Jim Sheridan: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create offences in relation to breaches of the Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice; and for connected purposes.
	I should like to begin by thanking those hon. Members who kindly agreed to sponsor this Bill, and all those colleagues who have given me their support in the face of potential threats, or of the consequences of taking on and challenging the British press. I should also like to express my gratitude and thanks to Lord Soley, who in 1993 tried to bring in a similar Bill but who was unfortunately unsuccessful.
	This Bill would introduce a statutory method for protecting the general public from inaccurate and, at times, inflammatory reports in the press and media. It is not intended, either by design or omission, to restrict or in any other way curtail the freedom of the press. However, a free press must balance commercial considerations with its responsibilities to individuals and to society as a whole.
	The press are beholden to ensure that what is reported is accurate and can be substantiated if challenged. As it stands, a high proportion of people living in the UK have some difficulty in believing even the racing results printed by some of our newspapers. Indeed, a recent survey suggested that only 7 per cent. of the general public trust tabloid journalists.
	I want to make a clear distinction between the tabloid press and those in the journalism profession, such as the late Charles Wheeler and, of course, our own Alan Johnston. At tremendous risk to themselves and their crews, they have worked bravely to report from some of the most troubled hotspots in the world and to bring events to our television screens. I contrast that with those who perch themselves in the Press Gallery here, and who indulge in cowardly character assassinations by day yet by night moonlight with the old boys' network of the BBC.
	The Press Complaints Commission was established in 1991 by the newspaper industry to address increasing concerns that self-regulation of the press was failing adequately to protect the public, and indeed the industry itself. The PCC's prime function is to put things right when they go wrong during the editorial process, and it seeks to police a voluntary code of practice that was drawn up by members of the industry. Its board has 15 members: seven are senior editors and the other eight are lay members. The PCC operates under the slogan "Fast, Free and Fair", and its voluntary code states that the press must take all due care not to publish "inaccurate, misleading or distorted" information in text or in picture format. It also states that a
	"significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence".
	If appropriate, an apology may also be published. The code continues by saying that the press, while free to be partisan, must be clear in their distinction between content, conjecture and fact. Finally, it also states that any publication must report fairly and in an accurate fashion
	"the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published."
	That is the PCC's voluntary code as it stands at the moment. However, despite its adoption, the number of complaints to the PCC is increasing. As recently as 2003, the total was up by 39 per cent. at 3,649 complaints, more than half of which related to the accuracy of reports. Despite that alarming rise, and against the backdrop of an increasing lack of trust in tabloid newspaper journalism, the PCC wrote to me, in response to the Bill, to establish its view that no review of its practices was warranted. The National Union of Journalists and I disagree with the PCC's position on that matter.
	The NUJ has for some time suggested that the PCC should be declared a public authority, to bring it within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That would make for a more transparent system, in which the PCC's workings were opened up to public scrutiny. At present, cases brought before the PCC are dealt with in secret, and only the final judgment is made public. The NUJ also argues that the best way to ensure adherence to the PCC's code of practice is for journalists themselves to uphold it. However, many journalists are increasingly forced to violate the code as a result of commercial pressures, or pressure from editors, some of whom are members of the PCC.
	The NUJ argues that if journalists had a contractual right to refuse to carry out assignments or tasks that required them to breach the code of practice, the result would be greater accuracy and less need for complaints. Such a "conscience clause" would perhaps be the biggest step towards a return to a fairer, free press. There have been suggestions from some quarters that if we made the press complaints procedure more accessible and effective, our newspapers would be full of nothing but apologies and retractions. That view is clearly absurd, as the only foreseeable reason why a paper would be full of corrections is that it had been full of inaccuracies in the first place. In addition, many countries such as Germany, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Switzerland and France have just as robust, or even more stringent, systems to ensure that their citizens are afforded protection from inaccurate press reporting.
	In the UK, the current voluntary code of practice leaves newspapers free to print what they like, irrespective of the personal consequences for those involved. In the majority of cases in which members of the general public are the victims of inaccurate reporting, they do not have the resources—financial or otherwise—to mount a legal challenge against those responsible. There is an increasing body of anecdotal evidence to suggest that in situations in which victims feel that they have a strong case, they are bought off with minimal out-of-court cash settlements, and with a small retraction buried in the depths of the newspaper. There are, of course, some high profile cases, such as that of the McCann family, whose lives have been made a misery, not simply because of their own actions, but because of subsequent unsubstantiated, and frankly outrageous, reports about their situation. In my view, the McCanns are due every penny of their successful claim.
	However, what about the case of Mr. Murat, at one time the prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case, who was cleared of any involvement, but whom the British media decided to convict, and whose life now lies in ruins? The principle of innocent until found guilty seems not to be held to by the tabloid newspapers, which choose to persecute people in the court of public opinion, although what they say has little or no basis in fact. There are many cases like Mr. Murat's, and that must give Members of the House, and the public, great cause for concern, as anyone at any time could fall prey to the vicious practices of the often unrepentant British press.
	A recent newspaper report was a prime example of inaccuracy; it made statements to the effect that a group of Muslims had attacked a house in Windsor that they thought was being purchased by four members of the armed forces returning from a tour in Afghanistan. The report was made despite the fact that there was no evidence to suggest that the vandalism was caused by Muslims. The story even included a quote from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Subsequently, evidence emerged that indicated that the local Army barracks had received three anonymous telephone calls the previous week from local residents who objected to the presence of soldiers, fearing that they would lower property prices in the area.
	As I made clear at the start of my comments, I do not wish to restrict the freedom of the press in the Bill. A free press is an essential tool in maintaining any forward-thinking democracy, and in avoiding—

Mr. Speaker: Order.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Jim Sheridan, Tony Lloyd, Ann Clwyd, Michael Connarty, David Taylor, Ian Lucas, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Mohammad Sarwar, Mr. Jim Devine, Mrs. Madeleine Moon, and Mr. Dai Havard.

Press Complaints Commission (Breaches of Code of Practice)

Jim Sheridan accordingly presented a Bill to create offences in relation to breaches of the Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 138].

Orders of the Day

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have given careful consideration to the Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions Bill. I am satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue which is not authorised by a resolution of this House. Therefore under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 78, the Lords amendments must be deemed to be disagreed to.

David Gauke: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Speaker; it clarifies this particular matter. I wish to make one point about the Reasons Committee. To quote the Financial Secretary, the main purpose of the National Insurance Contributions Bill was to align the upper earnings limit of national insurance contributions with the starting point of the higher rate of income tax. Since the Bill went through the House of Commons, when we broadly debated the matters to which the Lords amendments relate, it has emerged that it is no longer the Government's stated intention to align national insurance contributions and income tax. Would it be appropriate for the Committee, in providing its reasons to the House of Lords, to give the reasons why the Government wish to proceed with the Bill, given that the stated policy intention no longer applies?
	 Ordered,
	That a Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1 to 4; Jane Kennedy, Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mr. Jeremy Browne, Mr. David Gauke and David Wright to be members of the Committee; Jane Kennedy to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee; Committee to withdraw immediately. —[Mr. Khan.]

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith,  pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme  m otions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Health and Social Care Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 26th November 2007 (Health and Social Care Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. —[Mr. Khan.]
	 Question agreed to.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2
	 — 
	The Commission's functions

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister want to continue? He should be making his speech.

Ben Bradshaw: I was expecting, Mr. Speaker, that after what I said you would say that it will be convenient to consider the other amendments, and I would then continue. However, I am happy to make my points on the first group of amendments now, if that would be in order.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 24, 25 and 66.

Ben Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	In my view, the scrutiny of the Bill in both Houses has been enormously constructive, helped by the fact that there was broad cross-party support for the principle of integration and a genuine commitment to getting the framework right. Increasing integration of, and collaboration between, health and social care are among the key drivers behind the regulation framework provided for in the Bill, and constitute a recurrent theme running through Government policy. We introduced this group of amendments to address some of the key concerns that were debated at length here and in the other place. They were put forward in discussion with the current commissions as well as with the National Consumer Council, the Picker Institute, and Which?, all of which have welcomed them.
	Amendment No. 2 introduces a new main objective for the commission.

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. Given that the Minister is now making his second speech on this amendment, does he need the leave of the House to do so?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister needs to reply at the end of the debate.

Ben Bradshaw: As I was saying, amendment No. 2 introduces a new main objective for the commission. We have been clear throughout that the commission's main priority should be the safety and quality of services, and I said early on that I thought that its key functions and responsibilities were already set out in what was clause 2. However, we recognise that many people thought that this was not expressed clearly enough. The amendment introduces a clear, succinct statement of purpose, which resists the temptation to stray into other territory and create for the commission additional broad functions that it would have been unclear how it was to deliver, or to include a long list of objectives that could duplicate the functions of other statutory bodies. Instead, it emphasises that the welfare of patients and people who use social services should be at the heart of everything that the commission does.
	Amendment No. 3 amends the matters to which the commission must have regard and sets those out in a separate clause. We were initially cautious about creating too many general requirements in these areas that risked diluting the commission's priorities. However, we have been persuaded on two particular fronts to make changes that, through their careful construction, address key concerns about the regulator's focus on people who use services, but still preserve the right balance. Those are the reference to Local Involvement Networks—or LINks—which relates to amendment No. 72 in the next group, and the expansion of the responsibility to promote and protect people's rights.
	Another key issue in both Houses has been the desire to secure patient and user engagement in the commission's work. We set out from the outset to create a body with a strong user focus, just as the existing bodies have. I have put on record my expectation that the commission will not only work closely with LINks but will find ways to engage with people who use services on a broader basis. Through Lords amendments Nos. 4, 24 and 25, we have responded to requests for this expectation to be set out explicitly in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 make it explicit that the commission must demonstrate to Parliament, as part of its annual reporting, how it is delivering against its statement on engagement.
	Amendment No. 66 also responds to one of the key themes of the debates—the importance of ensuring that social care and the commission's responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 are not neglected. We have given assurances in both Houses that that would not be the case, but various amendments were proposed to try to guarantee it by legislative means. In amendment No. 66 we have arrived at a solution that provides the reassurance that some people have been looking for without tying the commission's hands. It will include a broad requirement for the board to include members with expertise relating to all three areas covered by the existing bodies: social care, monitoring the use of powers under the 1983 Act, and health care.
	We believe that the amendments improve on what was already in the Bill to make much clearer what is expected of the commission, without telling it how it should approach its task, and I commend them to the House.

Stephen O'Brien: I welcome this group of amendments, which delivers some of the changes that we were looking for, notably the inclusion of LINks—Local Involvement Networks—carers and service users, and proper representation for those with experience of health care, social care and functions under the Mental Health Act 1983. Unfortunately, it still fails to give the full independence needed for an effectively functioning regulator.
	Amendment No. 1, which simply creates space for amendments Nos. 2 and 3, is uncontroversial. Amendment No. 2 inserts a new clause on the commission's objectives. I welcome that new clause, brought forward by the Government, as it responds to Conservative amendments from the other place and this House. I pay tribute to those on the Conservative Front Bench in the other place, particularly my noble Friend Earl Howe, on winning so many concessions from the Government. Indeed, a large number of the substantive Government amendments before us today come as a direct result of amendments tabled by Conservative Front Benchers in Grand Committee.
	Members of the Committee in this House will well remember that amendment No. 2 was originally tabled, in similar terms, by me, supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends and others from other Opposition parties—and the Minister is now introducing it himself. In Committee in this House, the Minister said:
	"we believe that the essence and desires behind the new clause are already in the Bill"
	and called attempts to lay out the objectives
	"flawed and unnecessary"——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 15 January 2008; c. 186.]
	I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain to the House why his colleagues in the other place disagreed, and whether he still considers such an amendment "flawed and unnecessary". Surely it would have saved much parliamentary time to have accepted the amendment in Committee in this place.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does he have any explanation for the flip-flop, or U-turn? Is this a rare occasion when a Minister has listened and realised that he was wrong?

Stephen O'Brien: The best I can say to my right hon. Friend is that I would like to think so. I recall saying at the outset of the Committee that as we were aiming for as much consensus as possible on health and social care—not areas that are normally given to the playing of the party political game—I hoped that the Minister would avoid being tribal or having pride of authorship in the Bill. It was clear to us during the course of the Committee that accepting any Opposition amendments would cause the Minister physically to wince, so he did not accept one. Now we are back, mainly to implement the Conservative amendments, conceded in another place, that we presented in Committee. In answer to my right hon. Friend, there is a genuine question about what the price of saving face, or the price of not thinking quickly enough on one's feet, is. As so much parliamentary time could have been saved had the amendments been accepted when they were first proposed, it is fair to ask precisely what has changed the Minister's mind in the interim.
	There are indeed some questions about the new clause. A number of hon. Members, and their lordships, have expressed concerns about the picture of the Care Quality Commission painted by the report "Developing the NHS Performance Regime", recently published under the aegis of the NHS chief executive. Paragraph 150 states:
	"The main responsibilities of the CQC are to: register health and social care providers; carry out a periodic assessment of all NHS...patient pathways or into other areas of concern or risk in terms of patient safety; carry out investigations into specific organisations where CQC believes that user safety is seriously at risk; and gatekeeping and proportionate regulation."
	The report continues:
	"However, the principal role of the CQC will be to register health and adult social care providers."
	Paragraph 153 states:
	"The registration system will be a key function of the CQC. In operating this, the regulator will register, monitor compliance and take action in relation to healthcare providers' adherence to the registration scheme."
	Furthermore, paragraph 100 states that
	"the CQC's approach to assessing the performance of NHS organisations includes their assessment of quality and of financial performance. Our expectation is that the CQC will continue to work closely with the Audit Commission on the latter".
	However, what is the expectation for the former—assessment of quality?
	The document not only flies in the face of the amendment, which does not mention registration, but drives a massive wedge between the CQC's social care and health care responsibilities. The NHS chief executive wants the health care side to be divested of performance monitoring, but presumably such monitoring will be built into the social care side. The chief executive reveals his hand in paragraph 100, which says:
	"we cannot have the same organisation being identified as 'weak' by the CQC and not identified as 'underperforming' by SHAs as performance managers".
	Could that be construed as the chief executive wanting to keep the dirty laundry in-house instead of supporting the quasi-independent CQC?
	It remains clear that our model of separate independent regulation of quality and finances, which, sadly, was rejected in Committee, is much more transparent, effective and likely to support world-class patient care. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain the contradictory messages that the Bill and the Department are conveying.
	I welcome most of Lords amendment No. 3. Again, I pay tribute to the Conservative Front-Bench team in another place, whose amendments in Grand Committee inspired it. I am especially glad that Local Involvement Networks have finally made it on to the face of the Bill. I know that hon. Members in other parties will also welcome that.
	I welcome Lords amendment No. 72, which is in the next group, and adds the commission to the list of those to whom Local Involvement Networks must send copies of their annual reports. Again—I do not want to cause too much controversy—the Minister was strident in his opposition to the inclusion of LINks. He told me in Committee:
	"I do not think that the amendment requiring a statutory relationship with LINks is the right way to go about the matter... I am not sure that singling out LINks for special treatment in the form of a statutory relationship...is the right way of going about it."—[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 152.]
	On Report, he said:
	"we do not believe that it is appropriate to dictate to those statutory and independent bodies the way in which they should involve LINks in inspections or consultations."—[ Official Report, 18 February 2008; Vol. 472. c. 88.]
	What has changed? Of course, a late concession is better than none, but the Minister should have been prepared to change his mind when we discussed those matters in Committee, rather than waiting until such a late stage and taking up the House's time.
	I welcome proposed new subsection (1)(d) in Lords amendment No. 3, which recognises that the commission has a responsibility
	"to protect and promote the rights of people who use health...care services"
	and I remind the House that we debated that matter in Committee, and again the Minister was unwavering about it. The Government previously extended the provision only to children and vulnerable adults. Conservative Members believed that the CQC should promote the rights of all people, including those groups, but not excluding others. I am glad that the Government saw reason in another place. Again, I regret that the Minister did not see it sooner.
	I regret that the Government have retained clause 2(4) in proposed new subsection (2) of Lords amendment No. 3. As the provision is drafted, the CQC must still
	"have regard to such aspects of Government policy as the Secretary of State may direct."
	That makes nonsense of the idea of independence. I accept that the Minister has made several concessions to the independence of the bodies that the Bill creates or modifies—but those leave the provision that I have just cited looking rather out of place. Through it, the Secretary of State retains significant control over the CQC. In addition, clause 42 provides that the Secretary of State
	"may direct the Commission to devise indicators"
	of quality.
	That is a retention of politically motivated targets, and the Bill is peppered with similar phrases.
	Dame Denise Platt stated in her powerful evidence:
	"We think that the independence should be clear. The body should have the opportunity to think, initiate and comment and to be accountable to parliament for what it does"—[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 14, Q18.]
	I am not sure that the Bill provides for that sort of independence. It contains many phrases along the lines of "with the agreement of the Secretary of State".
	Speaking about clause 41, the Healthcare Commission stated in its submission:
	"there is a risk of conflict with the independence that the Bill envisages for the regulator".
	It added:
	"We do not think that the Government should determine operational priorities for an independent regulator."
	The independence of the regulator is key to freeing our NHS from political meddling. It is sad that the Government have not taken the opportunity to work towards that. The regulator will have the full confidence of the patients and front-line staff only when quality is its sole driver, not the political desires of the Government of the time. I am glad that we have won that and other concessions, but until the Secretary of State's power as set out is removed from the Bill, it does not go far enough.
	As for LINks, I welcome Lords amendment No. 4 and its focus on service users, which has yet again been underpinned by amendments from the Conservative Front Bench in another place and a new clause proposed by me in Committee. I welcome the fact that, through Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 25, the CQC will be required to report on user involvement. The Minister rejected our proposals in Committee on the grounds that the advisory committee that the commission must establish under schedule 1 could allow such involvement. I am glad that he has changed his mind, but I would be grateful to know why.

John Redwood: Is all this not just more evidence that the Government cannot get away from centralised, target-setting, interfering bossiness, messing up the health service and not allowing innovation and professional choice?

Stephen O'Brien: My right hon. Friend reaches for the overarching principle that lies behind the mindset that informs Bills of this type. The Government have an opportunity to pick up on the enormous amelioration that we could have, in resettling the basis on which the NHS can deliver, organically and from patient-driven demand, improved health care outcomes, rather than having an input-driven, target-setting approach. That is set out in our autonomy and accountability Bill, which has been drafted by the Opposition and is ready to go. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to ensure that, if that opportunity had slipped the Government's mind, it is now before them again.
	We also welcome the explicit mention of carers at the end of Lords amendment No. 4. However, I note the circularity that persists in the Bill, in Lords amendment No. 5, which states that in Chapter 1,
	"'health and social care services' has the meaning given by"
	clause 3, entitled "The Commission's objectives". Clause 3 defines "health and social care services" as
	"the services to which the Commission's functions relate."
	However, clause 2(1) states:
	"The Commission has the functions conferred on it by or under any enactment."
	The Government have failed to investigate not only public health and health inspections, but adequate protection in the areas of cosmetic surgery, needs assessments for care, and health-related assessments for work, as regards the personal capacity assessment and health assessments in custody.
	Lords amendment No. 66, the final amendment in the group, ensures that the commission includes representatives of health care and social care, and action under the Mental Health Act 1983. I am glad that the amendment has been tabled, because the Minister strongly resisted such a proposal in Committee. We might have progressed through the opening clauses of the Bill much more quickly had the Government made that concession then. I note, for example, that in oral evidence the Mental Health Act Commission made clear the need for
	"adequate organisational and personal accountability at board level for the monitoring of and reporting on the needs and rights of detained patients." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 9, Q9.]
	The Minister rejected our overtures, saying that our proposals
	"specify a great deal more prescriptive detail than we feel happy with...We believe it should be for the commission itself to establish the organisational structures...That should extend to the executive team it chooses to have...Specifying that the commission must have executive officers and committees that lead on different client groups could undermine the commission's ability to adopt that integrated approach". ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 134-35.]
	I would be interested to know what has changed the Minister's mind, in terms of the content of Lords amendment No. 66, between then and now.

Sandra Gidley: It would be churlish not to welcome the amendments, particularly those that reinforce the importance of social care. Given that most parties have tried to work together on some of these issues, it is a little churlish of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) to claim that every amendment in the other place resulted from the efforts of the Conservatives alone. I have read the Lords  Hansard, and that is not quite my perspective—but I will move on.
	The inclusion of objectives is helpful in reinforcing the social care aspects of the commission. I was also delighted to see that the commission must now have regard to
	"the efficient and effective use of resources in the provision of health and social care services."
	We tried to raise the issue of commissioning quite a bit in Committee, but the Minister resisted our various attempts to include a provision in the Bill, despite the fact that Anna Walker made a powerful case for one during the Committee's evidence sessions.
	It is probably fair to say, however, that those changes were not resisted as strongly as were the attempts to include LINks, and I am delighted that LINks are now included. Interestingly, I have picked out the same quote as the hon. Member for Eddisbury did from the Committee proceedings, when the Minister clearly said that he did not think including LINks was the right way to go, although he added that he would come back with clearer thinking on the issue. On Report, however, he repeated his earlier sentiment; indeed, we divided the House, and Government Back Benchers, almost to a man and woman, although not quite—there were a few honourable exceptions—agreed with him. I am almost tempted to find a way to divide the House now, to see whether Labour Members, as one body, have changed their minds, but that would be churlish, and we have to welcome what we have.
	It is all very well including LINks, but some of us have grave concerns about how they will work in practice. They will be very different. They are supposed to respond to local needs. There is no formally prescribed set-up. LINks will have a different make-up in different parts of the country. I welcome the Minister's mention of the fact that there will be a broader basis and a broader consultation, and it would be helpful if he could outline how that will be achieved.
	I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. Lords amendment No. 3 deals with
	"Matters to which the Commission must have regard".
	It is right that it must now have regard to
	"the rights of people who use health and social care services",
	which means the rights of everybody, not just specific groups. However, the use of the word "rights" got me thinking. At various stages in our consideration of the Bill, we have attempted to introduce a human rights-based approach. It is relatively easy to define human rights, and although it is not always easy to enshrine them in new legislation, such legislation does help us to define them. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the word "rights" is intended to include human rights, whether it is intended to be broader, and what is meant by rights. I do not think that the term has particular legal meaning, so a broader outline of the Minister's thinking would be helpful.
	I also have a question about Lords amendment No. 4. Although I am delighted to see a focus on user involvement, the proposed new clause strikes me as potentially tokenistic. Although the commission has to publish a statement describing how it proposes to involve users and carers, it is not clear when that is supposed to happen. The proposed new clause mentions periodic reviews that must be consulted on, but it does not say by when we should have the statement. Again, it would be helpful to have some clarification from the Minister when he sums up.
	Finally, I welcome Lords amendment No. 66, which would make it clear in the Bill that a full range of knowledge must be represented on the commission, and that is clearly important. The chair of the commission has now been appointed, and in her evidence to the Select Committee she was very open about the fact that she knew little about social care. Knowledge has to be taken into account, so it would be useful to have further clarification of the depth of knowledge expected, of whether one board member will be enough, and of whether there will be attempts to create a balance. Although there has to be a full range of knowledge, the balance could still be tilted if the composition of the board changed over time and this principle were not kept at the forefront of thinking.

Ben Bradshaw: I share the slight disappointment of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) at the ungracious tone adopted by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). We made it clear throughout Committee that we were in listening mode, and open to constructive suggestions as to how to improve the Bill further. The hon. Gentleman referred to the contribution of his noble Friend Earl Howe when the Bill passed through the other place—and Earl Howe described the Government amendments as diamonds and gems. If the hon. Member for Eddisbury wants me to outline the exact differences between these amendments and those that he proposed in Committee, I shall be happy to do so, but let me say that his amendments were closer in form to stones and pebbles than to diamonds and gems. That is why we tabled our own amendments; if we had not, he would have criticised us for not listening and not improving the Bill. Thanks to the contributions of noble Lords from the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties, as well as Cross Benchers in the other place, the Bill has been considerably improved, and I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have found it in himself to welcome that.
	The hon. Member for Romsey asked about rights. The answer to her question is that the rights include human rights, but are not exclusively about them.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 13
	 — 
	Cancellation of registration

Lords amendment: No. 6.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 23, 26 to 31, 53, 54, 67 to 72 and 84.

Ben Bradshaw: This group consists of concessions, where we have listened and responded carefully to debate, and some minor technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 18 to 21 and 28 to 31 make it explicit that, as has always been our stated intention, the new regulator must conduct periodic reviews of care commissioned by primary care trusts or local authorities. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 mean that, following a special review or investigation, the regulator must consider whether the report raises issues on which it should advise the Secretary of State.
	Tabled in response to discussions on the independence of the new commission, amendments Nos. 17, 23 and 26 would moderate certain powers that the Secretary of State will have. We have also put on the record the fact that the commission can decide for itself when it begins its special reviews.
	Finally, amendments Nos. 8 and 72 make even more explicit the need for providers to learn from complaints, and require LINks to send their annual reports to the commission. Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 result from recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, while the remaining amendments are simply technical and are intended to improve the Bill. I hope that the House will support them.

Stephen O'Brien: I shall use precisely the same words as I used in my opening remarks on the previous group of amendments. I welcome—the Minister and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) both seemed to miss my saying that—the majority of the amendments, which again pick up on points made by Conservatives in both Houses. It does not matter how much the Minister and the hon. Lady wish to deny that they were Conservative initiatives, they were indeed proposed by us in both Houses. I am pleased to say that some of them were supported by other Opposition parties.
	I am glad that the complaints function is addressed in regulations, although I fear that there are unresolved issues for patients, particularly for self-funders in social care. I am glad of greater scrutiny for prison and defence health care, although I retain some concerns about the powers of the Executive over that. I am glad of the amendments that limit the powers of the Secretary of State, but I am disappointed that no substantive amendments were achieved on malnutrition, given the powerful debates on that both in Committee and on Report.
	Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 11 are not controversial. Amendment No. 8, however, merits a bit of discussion. In addition to the handling of complaints and disputes, it enables regulations to make provision for the application of lessons learned from them. I am pleased to see the amendment on the amendment paper. It recognises that an effective complaints process includes a performance management output, so that mistakes are not repeated and loopholes are closed. I again pay tribute to my noble Friend Earl Howe for championing the amendment in another place, and I am pleased that the Government made the concession. However, it comes nowhere close to addressing the serious concerns that remain about the complaints arrangements both within registered providers and on a national scale through, inter alia, the parliamentary and health service ombudsman. I draw the House's attention to cross-party concern on that.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) made a number of powerful speeches on the subject in Committee, saying:
	"A number of my hon. Friends, not necessarily members of the Committee, are concerned about changes in patient representation and procedures for patients making complaints in recent years." —[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008; c. 346.]
	He was supported by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) in holding the Government to account for their failure in that respect. The amendment fails to address three issues—resourcing the ombudsman, monitoring trends, and supporting complaints by social care users.
	If you remember, Mr. Speaker, the Committee had three evidence-taking sessions before it considered the Bill in detail. In the ombudsman's written evidence, she said:
	"I have already explored with the Treasury the additional funding I am likely to require".
	However, no figure has been put on that. This is a serious issue, as the saving made by the Care Quality Commission will no doubt be reported as a gross saving by the Department, but could be a net loss to the taxpayer.
	I must remind the Minister that at column 348 of our Committee proceedings he promised to write to me with "the exact figure"—a promise that his letter MS (H) 103035 failed to deliver on, dealing with the issue only in the broadest terms. It is disappointing that the Bill has reached its final stages, with this amendment, without that information coming before the House. I complained about that on Third Reading, but have had no response from the Minister.
	Looking at the complaints that the Healthcare Commission has received, the ombudsman faces a potential elevenfold increase in her work load. How much will that cost? We need to know whether the cost is admitted by the Treasury, or is it in denial of the costs of its very own legislation? Has the ombudsman been given the assurances and budgets requested and required? If not, why not? If the Minister does not know the answer, then after all this time, why not? If he does, but will not give it, surely we are right to place the question on the record.

Angela Browning: Associated with my hon. Friend's comments is the fact that I am still unclear—I wonder whether he or, eventually, the Minister can clarify this—how some of the lessons learned and how the complaints procedure generally, whether it is through the Care Quality Commission or the ombudsman, will translate into changes of policy in either health or social care?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend touches on an important point—how we benefit from the processes. That has not been particularly well thought through, not least because of the absence of, for instance, the great bed-watch campaigns that the old community health councils could collectively inspire. Indeed, the second of the three areas that I was discussing in relation to amendment No. 8 and our concerns, which remain unaddressed but have been part of the debate that has led us to this point, was monitoring the trends. For a regulator, local or national trends revealed through complaints can be a useful bellwether—precisely the point made by my hon. Friend—in directing its inspection activity. The amendment, however, fails to establish a mechanism for the monitoring of complaints trends at national level—as did the old bed-watch campaign, until it was summarily scrapped.
	The Minister told the Committee:
	"It will be very important that the ombudsman works very closely with the Care Quality Commission if he or she identifies a pattern of complaints that is worthy of closer inspection and investigation." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008; c. 347.]
	I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted amendments that would have included that in the Bill.
	As for the third area—the supporting of complaints by social care users—the Bill does nothing to address the disparity in access to such support between publicly and privately funded individuals. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), said in Westminster Hall
	"it is unacceptable that self-funders should not have the protection that other residents have".—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 52WH.]
	In September, he told the radio programme "File on 4" that he would achieve that through legislation. Given the limited scope of the amendment, can the Minister confirm that the Government are reneging on that commitment? If they are not, where is the legislation promised by his equally senior colleague, and when will we see it?
	We welcome Lords amendment No. 14, which should provide further protection for two groups of people whom I hesitate to bracket together—soldiers and prisoners. Members will be familiar with the countless stories of our brave armed forces personnel being treated alongside the civilian population in what are sometimes unacceptable circumstances. As for prisoners, they have some of the worst health—particularly mental health—in the country, and it is right that they should be protected. I am, however, concerned about the scope for the CQC's powers of entry to be limited
	"in the interests of national security".
	What assurances do we have that the power will not be used to cover up poor practice or poor Government policy? Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to appoint inspectors who are security-cleared for such circumstances. I appreciate that that may be a problem, but what checks and balances are there on the exercise of executive power?
	Lords amendment No. 31 defines
	"health care commissioned by a Primary Care Trust"
	and
	"adult social services commissioned by an English local authority"
	as
	"health care provided by other persons pursuant to arrangements made by the Trust"
	and
	"adult social services provided by other persons pursuant to arrangements made by the authority"
	respectively. Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 require the CQC to conduct periodic reviews of health and social care "provided or commissioned" by PCTs and local authorities respectively.
	Can the Minister confirm that that phrasing, which seems to have a certain ambivalence, commits the CQC to periodic reviews of commissioning as well as of commissioned services? I do not understand how "services commissioned by" can mean the same as the process of commissioning. One of the aims of amendments tabled by Conservatives in both Houses during the Committee stages was to give the CQC power to inspect commissioning itself, not just commissioned services. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendments in almost exactly the same terms and for similar purposes.
	Anna Walker told the Committee during oral evidence:
	"you have to look at a mixture of commissioning and provision; at what the primary care trusts are doing, as well as what the provider is doing. We would like to see that power for the wider review cover commissioning as well as provision." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 17, Q25.]
	The Healthcare Commission's annual health check for 2008-09 will assess PCTs on the quality of their commissioning.
	I remain concerned about the fact that the powers of the CQC seem to be limited to the registration and inspection of health care rather than involving broader health issues. As the Minister will recall, Anna Walker said in her evidence to the Committee, in response to a question from me,
	"we are very perturbed that at the moment the administration requirements explicitly exclude catching work on health, as opposed to healthcare ... we believe ... that people's health needs to be looked after as well as their health care ... The registration requirements explicitly say that they cannot bite on public health issues, only on healthcare issues." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 12, Q12-13.]
	That was in relation to clause 90. Anna Walker raised that issue as far back as September 2007. She told the  Health Service Journal:
	"People who look after healthcare are really important in looking after health. Although regulation is not the only player in this it is a very useful lever to improve public health."
	I ask the Minister to confirm why the NHS chief executive, who added some evidence in relation to that matter, is content with those proposals, particularly as regards public health.
	On 2 August last year, the  Financial Times stated that
	"a battle had broken out"
	between David Nicholson, the NHS chief executive, who sees the PCTs as part of his management empire, and Anna Walker, who said that there must be
	"a mechanism for holding people publicly accountable"
	for the quality of purchasing. During the Committee stage, the Minister said that performance assessment of PCT commissioning "was provided for" in the Bill under the special reviews regime, and would not accept our amendments to clause 42. If this provision delivers the power of periodic review of commissioning, I am glad that he has listened to us.
	Lords amendment No. 17 removes the power of the Secretary of State to modify documents of the commission which set out the frequency of reviews. Those documents would still require the Secretary of State's approval. Again, the amendment comes in response to amendments that we tabled in the Grand Committee, again supported by another party. That is a small victory in the Conservative crusade to have the CQC set up as an independent regulator, rather than one too often at the beck of the Secretary of State. Whether it turns out to be effective in practice, we wait to see. While the Secretary of State will not be able to "modify", he will presumably be able to withhold approval until he is happy with the document, amounting to the same thing.
	Likewise, I welcome Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which give the CQC a new power to refer matters of concern to the Secretary of State, and are the result of points made by my noble Friend Earl Howe in Grand Committee. They give the CQC a further power in its own right, separate from the Secretary of State. I only lament, once more, that the CQC is not independent enough.
	I welcome Lords amendment No. 23, which again removes the power of the Secretary of State to specify by order when the commission must publish programmes setting out the reviews, investigations and studies that it proposes to conduct. It is a further concession won in another place. Not only is it welcome as a further removal of the Secretary of State's control over the commission, but it is welcome as one less piece of legislation that will use up valuable parliamentary time. The 1950 Parliament put 720 pages of Acts and 2,970 pages of statutory instruments on to the statute book. Last year, the number of pages of new Acts totalled 4,609 and there were 11,868 new pages of statutory instruments. I just could not help referring to that, as it is so shocking.
	I am also pleased that amendment No. 26 removes the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the manner in which the new commission is to make and publish its plans for charging fees. It will be recalled that, although those elements to enhance the independence of the CQC are welcome, the Government have been unable to accept that it was appropriate to reconsider clause 2(4), which now seems rather out of place and which effectively enables there to be a Secretary of State override, as the commission must have regard to what the Secretary of State "may direct."
	Lords amendment No. 22 enables the Welsh Ministers and the commission to share information to support the efficient and effective discharge of their functions. Representing a constituency which shares a border with Wales, I am glad to see that provision included, because, while there is a political and administrative boundary, people on the ground want to use the service that is most convenient and effective for them: people from Flintshire coming to Chester, and people from the south-west corner of my constituency going to Wrexham Maelor and other such places. I also note that we were the only party with an MP representing a Welsh constituency in the Committee. As the measure applies to Welsh bodies, that was an important point, which we made in selecting those who served on the Committee. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether that amendment would allow me, representing my constituents who use services under the purview of Welsh Ministers, to gain the rights of audience that I should have with those Ministers on behalf of my constituents.
	It just so happens that a very upsetting constituency case has come across my desk today. Welsh Ministers have today decided to close a special needs children's home, just after an autistic Asperger's syndrome child had spent three months getting familiar with it. Today, with all his furniture moved into his new home, they have announced its closure, and he was due to arrive tomorrow morning. It has been the most desperate decision by Welsh Ministers in that case.
	I also note the scathing interim report from the Welsh Affairs Committee on cross-border health care. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that adequate data protection would be in place for such data sharing, and I hope that Welsh Ministers, English Ministers and the CQC will take seriously the four criteria that have been established: clinical excellence as close to home as possible, border-proofing of policy and practice, cross-border citizen engagement, and transparency and accountable co-operation between localities, regions and Governments.
	Amendment No. 67 would make a minor amendment to schedule 5 to reflect the fact that the Children and Young Persons Bill, which is referred to in the schedule, is not now expected to receive Royal Assent until after the Health and Social Care Bill does. There is nothing to be said on that amendment other than that it is terribly unfortunate that the Government Whips have failed so monumentally to timetable effectively a Government-sponsored Bill and have therefore got that out of kilter.
	Amendment No. 68 would allow Welsh Ministers to use any information obtained in exercising specified functions for the purposes of any of their other specified functions. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that data passed from English bodies to Welsh Ministers would be handled with the same level of security as they are by English bodies—which, admittedly, is not much under this Government. More important, will English bodies or individuals who are the subject of such data sharing, and their representatives, be given rights of appeal to Welsh bodies as regards that data?

Sandra Gidley: I do not propose to go through the amendments at length, as we support most of them because they improve the Bill and make changes that we sought to secure in Committee.
	I particularly welcome the amendments that strengthen the role of the commission with regard to commissioning. My interpretation of Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 is that they would allow for the commissioning to be reviewed. I was very taken by the comments of Lord Warner on Report in the other place. He has considerable experience of health matters, and he said:
	"In the past, there has been a considerable reluctance on the part of the NHS, and often of the Department of Health and Ministers, to act when commissioners are failing. They are much more willing to act when providers are failing. The Bill is strongly focused on providers, with a registration system and a set of sanctions accordingly.
	I do not want to put the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in a difficult position in her future relationships with Ministers and SHAs, but there is an issue about whether, in the Bill, the commission should be able to require some action from the performance managers".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 1349.]
	Try as I might, I could see that there was a provision to review, but it was hard to see what sanctions were available if the commission felt there were problems in any area of commissioning. As it is a variable beast that works well in some areas of the country and less well in others, I felt Lord Warner raised a valid point that Lord Darzi did not fully address in his summing-up comments. It would, therefore, be helpful if the Minister were to add to them today, and put some flesh on the bones.
	I particularly welcome the many amendments that take out the reference to the Secretary of State—in respect of modifying reports, for example. Although there are still some provisions for the Secretary of State, it is pleasing that his role seems to have been almost totally emasculated by the other place. That will be welcomed by those who query whether the new body will be truly independent. It is still not perfect, but it is much better than it was, and it is clearer that there is less provision for Government interference of any kind.

Ben Bradshaw: On the issue of costs and the ombudsman, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) will know that the health service ombudsman for England is independent of Government, and she has made it clear that she has plans in place to ensure that her office is prepared to handle the expected increase from 1 April 2009. She has been exploring the funding that she is likely to require directly with the Treasury, rather than with my Department. She also made it clear in the memorandum that she tabled for the Committee, which has been shared with hon. Members, that she would be happy to provide them directly with any further information.
	On the question whether the complaints to the ombudsman would be followed up by the Care Quality Commission, the regulations under clause 16 make it clear that the detailed requirements of the registration system are likely to require all providers of health and adult social care to have appropriate complaints processes in place. In this case, the CQC would examine an organisation's handling of complaints and hold it accountable for how robust its arrangements were. That consideration would include whether organisations were learning from complaints, as we all want them to do.
	On the issue of self-funding, I am sure that the hon. Member for Eddisbury is aware that the Government accepted that it was wrong that people who funded their own social care had no recourse to independent resolution of complaints. It was therefore with great pleasure that we were able to confirm on Third Reading in the other place that we would take the next available legislative opportunity to extend the remit of the local government ombudsman, so that he or she could investigate complaints by self-funders. To achieve that, we will amend the Local Government Act 1974. Of course, the local government ombudsman already has a role to play in investigating complaints by people whose care is arranged or funded by local authorities. A new responsibility for self-funder complaints will sit logically with those existing duties, and the ombudsman's staff will have the advantage of already understanding the types of issues that arise in adult social care.

Stephen O'Brien: The Minister rightly confirmed that the first legislative opportunity would be taken to introduce access to these arrangements for self-funders—we all hear and accept that, as he acknowledges. Given that such provision was not identified as part of the draft legislative programme recently announced by the Government, has the Minister had any indication as to whether we might expect it in the forthcoming legislative programme—after all, it was only a draft that was announced—or soon after? Alternatively, does he see it as a more distant horizon?

Ben Bradshaw: No, we want to do this as soon as we possibly can. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that no Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box in July and say exactly what will be in the next legislative Session. As I have said, it is certainly our intention to legislate at the earliest opportunity.
	As for the Care Quality Commission's commissioning role, I do not think that we could have made it clearer, both during the passage of the Bill and in changing its wording in the other place, that the CQC's role would include reviews of the process of commissioning. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) made an important point about the overall importance of improving commissioning and the primary care trusts' capacity to commission. It should not be forgotten that alongside the role of the CQC in improving the quality of commissioning through regulation, we also recently announced in the primary and community care strategy—and before that, in our proposed performance and failure regime—how PCTs' commissioning could be better performance-managed. The Bill contains a power for the CQC to call on the Secretary of State to intervene where it believes that a PCT's commissioning is not up to standard.

Simon Burns: The Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) a perfectly valid and stock answer under the old regime. However, given that the Government have changed the regime in favour of transparency and have published a draft legislative programme, why can the Minister not define what the earliest possible moment is? Why can he not assure the House that it will be in the next Session of Parliament, as opposed to giving a vaguer answer—we would have expected that before the change to greater transparency?

Ben Bradshaw: Although we have, as the hon. Gentleman graciously acknowledged, improved the level of transparency through the process of publishing a draft legislative programme for consultation, he will know that that is not an exhaustive list of Bills and that the fact that a Bill has been published in the draft legislative programme does not necessarily guarantee that it will have a place in the final programme. As I said, I am not in a position—he has been here long enough to know that no Minister would be in this position—to say in July what will be in the next Queen's Speech.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 111
	 — 
	Powers of Secretary of State and devolved administrations

Lords amendment: No. 32.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 36, 52, 55 to 60, 62, 73 to 83 and 85 to 89.

Ben Bradshaw: This group of amendments reflect areas in part 2 of the Bill where arguments put forward in the other place merited serious consideration. We have also tabled amendments to achieve a new policy, which I will turn to first.
	Amendments Nos. 36, 60, 75 to 78 and 85 to 89 were introduced at Grand Committee stage in the other place to meet a Government commitment to abolish the Hearing Aid Council by April 2009 and to transfer the regulation of private hearing aid dispensers to the Health Professions Council. This group of amendments is intended to achieve that by paving the way for a future Order in Council under the section 60 provisions of the Health Act 1999, in addition to ensuring that public hearing aid dispensers can be regulated in the same way in the future.
	I accept that it is not ideal that this House did not have the opportunity to consider this provision in its deliberations in Committee. I hope, however, that hon. Members will forgive the fact that this is a late addition to the Bill in recognition of the very real benefits that this measure will bring for patients and consumers. First, this will provide improved protection for the hearing impaired and simplify the regulatory framework for hearing aid dispensers. Although the council has done a fantastic job over the past 40 years, it is operating under legislation that is increasingly outdated with gaps in consumer protection. The Health Professions Council, established in 2001, has modern and comprehensive legislation that will provide for a much more complete service to patients and consumers. As a multi-professional statutory regulator, it can provide greater resources while charging considerably smaller fees to the profession. Secondly, and importantly, the Hearing Aid Council itself, the Health Professions Council, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the British Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists are all fully supportive of this move, and are working together to ensure that the transition will be as smooth as possible.
	I turn now to the amendments that we have brought forward as a result of debates in the other place. Amendment No. 32 addresses concerns that the Secretary of State's power of direction over the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence in the Bill, as originally drafted, could be perceived as undermining the independence of the CHRE. The reason for including it in the Bill was as a mechanism to help the CHRE to prioritise its workload in busy periods, but having discussed it with the CHRE we are now confident that it can be dispensed with.
	On clause 116, I was persuaded by arguments put forward in the other place that the Bill could be strengthened to ensure that the careers of health care workers are not damaged by malicious or untrue allegations. Amendment No. 35 therefore requires the appropriate Minister to have regard
	"to the importance of avoiding unfair prejudice to health care workers against whom unsubstantiated allegations are made"
	when making the regulations setting out in detail how information can and should be shared.

Charles Walker: I have great sympathy with the Minister on that point because unsubstantiated allegations can ruin people's lives. What would be the process for ascertaining whether they were indeed unsubstantiated?

Ben Bradshaw: That will depend on the evidence.
	I turn now to the issue of the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator. Amendments Nos. 52 and 56 respond to concerns that the piloting of legally qualified chairs might be unfair to individual practitioners who appear in front of OHPA's fitness to practise panels. Although I am clear that that can be done fairly, we have brought forward amendments Nos. 52 and 56 to ensure that if OHPA makes rules that include piloting provisions, these rules will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That means that Parliament will have the opportunity to debate OHPA's detailed proposals for the pilot, and will be able to reject them if it is felt that they are unfair.
	Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 55, 57 and 59 implement recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They provide that when the first regulations are made under clauses 114 and 115, conferring responsibilities and additional responsibilities on responsible officers for the first time, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Finally, amendments Nos. 62, 73, 74, 82 and 83 are technical and minor.

Stephen O'Brien: Amendment No. 32, which leads this group, would remove the Secretary of State's power of direction in relation to the CHRE. It is exactly the same as my amendment No. 207, which was tabled at the Commons Committee stage. The Government conceded after the point was raised again by my noble Friend Earl Howe. Of course, we welcome it and thank the Government for listening, even if they did take the whole process of the Bill to do so.
	Lady Justice Smith told the Committee during its oral evidence sessions:
	"it is important, particularly in the health sphere, that the adjudicatory body should be seen to be independent of Government because the Government are a huge customer of healthcare; the biggest customer of healthcare. Therefore, it is important that there should be no suspicion that the Government are in a position to pull strings behind the scenes, as to what goes on. Absolute clarity and absolute independence are really important." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 42, Q82.]
	The Minister rejected my amendment in Committee on the grounds that there was
	"no intention to fetter the body's freedom"
	but
	"to ensure that, where necessary, a Secretary of State can ask the council to prioritise certain areas of its work load over others: for example, in cases in which there is particular public concern". ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 421.]
	That is as clear an admission of the political meddling that the Bill enables as one is likely to get.
	I am glad that the Government have conceded that point. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined why and how his views have changed since the Committee stage and why it was not possible to concede the points at that time. Exactly the same points were made to advance that argument in this House as were made in the other place, as the Minister mentioned.
	Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 55, 57, 58 and 59 were tabled in response to the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to Conservative amendments tabled by my noble Friend Earl Howe. The DPRRC recommended that regulations conferring responsibilities on responsible officers under new section 45B of the Medical Act 1983, as inserted by clauses 114 and 115, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure on their first exercise by each of the appropriate authorities. I note that the DPRRC made three specific recommendations and that the Minister accepted them all.
	The Minister will be aware that we called for regulations under clause 114 to be subject to the affirmative resolution, along with all the other regulations in the Bill. The House will recall that a quarter of the clauses in the Bill are dependent on regulation—a high proportion. In addition, there are a number of Henry VIII clauses that enable the amendment of primary legislation by secondary legislation, although the majority are already covered by the affirmative resolution. I am glad that the significant new step in regulatory policy—the creation of responsible officers—will have proper parliamentary scrutiny at its outset, at the very least.
	In Committee, we tried to pin down some of the policy on responsible officers. The discussion was framed by the concerns expressed by Lady Justice Smith during her oral evidence. She told us:
	"I really find it difficult to know how responsible officers are going to work and what role they will play in revalidation. I do not get that from this Bill."
	She went on:
	"I cannot tell from the Bill how it will work, which bothers me. I am worried about responsible officers". ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 42-43, Q83.]
	One suggestion is that PCT medical directors will be the responsible officers. Indeed, the Minister told the Committee that while the Government
	"do not seek to be prescriptive, we think that a medical director would be perfectly appropriately for this role"
	and that
	"it would not require a full-time post." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 431-33.]
	PCT medical directors are already busy and have many priorities. In her oral evidence, Lady Justice Smith noted that, saying:
	"I am really unhappy about that for several reasons...I do not like the idea of a medical director, who already has a lot of jobs, having to take on responsibility for revalidation as well as all his other jobs. I think that that is too much."
	Part of her desire to have the responsible officer as a separate role arises from her concern that
	"the revalidation process should be clear and understood, that it should be summative and a proper test, and that it should not just involve shuffling pieces of paper around and rubber-stamping them".
	The Medical Protection Society has also made that point. To show how the responsible officer's position could cause serious conflicts of interest, I hope that it will help the House if I cite a short example. Let us say that a local doctor prescribes an essential cancer drug for a patient and that that puts strain on the PCT's budget. Suddenly, the doctor finds himself at the wrong end of inquiry by the local GMC affiliate medical director. How does the GP know that the inquiry is genuine and not contrived? How does the medical director, the GMC affiliate, know that he is not being influenced in his regulatory decisions by pressure from his PCT chief executive?
	Lady Justice Smith noted the reverse possibility. She said:
	"There is a real tension between, on the one hand, an employer's desire to keep all of his employees in post, revalidated and fully qualified, and, on the other hand, the possible need to refuse to revalidate somebody, in which case their services might be lost entirely, diminished or put on hold, from which problems might arise. I am unhappy about that. I cannot tell how it will work, but it looks to me that it might be like that." ——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 43, Q83.]
	Dr. Hamish Meldrum of the British Medical Association said:
	"It comes back to the whole business of having confidence. We are aware of people—medical directors in trusts, or otherwise—whose loyalties have been primarily to their trust. We are not saying that their loyalties should be to the profession, but they should be to the wider benefits of health care. It is about achieving that balance by a degree of separation of function and a degree of separation of loyalties from the employer, and having an effective and practical operation. That is quite difficult: I accept that."—[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2008; c. 67, Q148.]
	The PCT medical directors are themselves the employees of PCTs, so their impartiality in the regulatory management of local doctors cannot be guaranteed. Responsible officers should be completely independent of the local PCT as in that way they are more likely to command the trust of local doctors and hence ultimately make the scheme more successful. As yet we have no confirmation that PCTs will not be encouraged or coerced, either by policy or by funding issues, to merge the two roles.
	Responsible officers provide an opportunity for a dedicated individual to pick up the early warning signs in, for example, prescribing practice. That allows an opportunity to improve performance. In an open system of benchmarking, that could be an effective asset to the local and national health economy, and to the professionalism and morale of local doctors.
	Given the contention surrounding the policy, I am glad to see this Government concession to pressure from the DPRRC and to points made by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, both in this House and the other place. I trust that the affirmative resolution procedure will provide an opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals. I hope that the Government will listen to the hopes of the profession in order to make the policy work best, for patient protection and better patient care.
	I turn now to Lords amendment No. 35. It would require the appropriate Minister, when making regulations on the sharing of information about health care workers among specified bodies, to
	"have regard to the importance of avoiding unfair prejudice to health care workers against whom unsubstantiated allegations are made."
	Liberal Democrat members of the Committee spoke about this matter, as did my noble Friend Earl Howe in Grand Committee. In Committee, the Minister said that the protections needed in respect of sharing unsubstantiated allegations would be made
	"plain in the secondary legislation."——[ Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 438.]
	What has changed the Minister's mind to bring us to where we are today? Can the Minister confirm whether there will be official processes—perhaps a formal alert system—to avoid tittle-tattle and unfair stigmatisation?

Charles Walker: Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. An allegation is an allegation. What in the Bill will protect members of the clinical professions from having allegations made against them? Surely the person making the allegation must be made aware that if the allegation is malicious, they will face legal action.

Stephen O'Brien: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. We in this House must be supremely conscious to ensure that justice can be done, and can be seen to be done. We are talking about a quasi-judicial area, and it is of course important not to discourage whistleblowing, which is one of the best sources of information. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), and I have been asked the question: what does one do to guard against those who might be minded to make a malicious allegation? There are people who might be keen to do so, because of career jealousy or personal angst. What would be the threat against those who knew that they had done something wrong? The answer is not in the Bill. The Bill rightly ensures that information can be provided, and it could be malicious or non-malicious. If it is non-malicious, that is fine, and the allegation will be examined.
	Of course, as with laying information before the police, there is information that it is important to provide. If it is of the most catastrophic kind, we need to know it as soon as possible, so that the police or, in this case, the professions, can investigate. My hon. Friend's point is about the middle ground—an issue that is not specified in the Bill. That could be improved.

Charles Walker: rose—

Stephen O'Brien: Perhaps I could just finish the point. There ought perhaps to be a safeguard. Somebody who makes a complaint needs to know that they can opt for an alert system. They can put the matter to an official body, which can then be on watch, or on alert, without launching a formal investigation. By that means, responsibility is offloaded from the individual. If the complaint is non-malicious, that is likely to give the person confidence that they have at least done the right thing. They will know that the official bodies are in possession of information that gives them the chance to be on watch, or to put in place an appropriate alert system. That happens in other areas, and quite properly so.
	The problem is that at the moment we do not have that necessary halfway house, which would at least in part provide the safeguard that my hon. Friend seeks in order to deter malicious tittle-tattle and worse. That is not in the Bill, but now that we have had this exchange, I hope that the matter will at the very least be picked up in the training and guidelines for all those involved officially in encouraging whistleblowing more widely, through marketing. We see advertisements encouraging whistleblowing in various parts of our community from time to time, so that we can get genuine information and so forth. That information will then be given, and the subject of the complaint can be officially put on watch; that way, allegations are not simply a way of passing on tittle-tattle. I hope that that addresses my hon. Friend's valid and important point to some degree, and I am deeply grateful to him for raising it.
	When the Minister addresses the points raised in discussion on this group of amendments, it would be helpful if he amplified his views on whether there will be official processes—perhaps a formal alert system of the kind that I described—to avoid tittle-tattle and unfair stigmatisation. That would give whistleblowers clarity and peace of mind about the fact that their concerns are being dealt with professionally. It would also give professionals the confidence that they need in the system, and I hope that the Minister listened carefully to our exchange.
	Amendment No. 52 is coupled with amendment No. 56. They would ensure that the rules concerning the running of a pilot scheme for legally qualified chairs of panels were subject to the affirmative procedure. As I am sure the Minister remembers well, we have already had extensive debate about legally qualified chairs. The amendments were tabled in response to points made by my noble Friend Earl Howe in Grand Committee, and by others, about the fairness of the scheme. The Government amendments on legally qualified chairs that were brought forward on Report in the Commons did not go as far as they might have done, but they were an important concession by the Government, and they recognised the strength of the arguments—not least our own—on legally qualified chairs.
	The provision of legally qualified chairs arises from recommendation 79 of the Shipman inquiry's fifth report, by Lady Justice Smith, then Dame Janet Smith. She reinforced her position during an oral evidence session in the Public Bill Committee, on 8 January, at column 37 of  Hansard. Her grounds relate to effective chairmanship, the speed of proceedings, a higher standard of reasoned decision, and an ability to deal with the complexities of the civil standard of proof. It will be remembered that the Bill uses the civil, as opposed to the criminal, standard of proof for the processes in question. I am glad that both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the final proposals when they come before us; that will be absolutely vital.
	Amendment No. 62 prevents schedule 8 from coming into force on the day the Act is passed. Will the Minister clarify why he has had to take that step? I am grateful that the Government have conceded that the commission should be able to conduct special reviews from the outset. The Government spokesman in another place noted:
	"The commission will decide for itself what reviews are necessary from the outset, taking account of the resources available to it and the need to fulfil all its statutory functions."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2008; Vol. 701, GC253.]
	Both the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Healthcare Commission have produced valuable special reports that are able to assess the national picture of a specific issue. There was some concern about the Government's desire to delay granting that power to the regulators—not least that the delay would have conveniently tied the hands of the regulator until after the next general election. The Minister opposed the move in Committee and we pushed it to a Division. Why did the Government not change their mind at that point rather than now, welcome though it is that we have now reached agreement?
	Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 make what the explanatory notes call "minor drafting changes" to schedule 7. Amendment No. 73 excises the phrase "member State" and replaces it with "relevant European State". Often, these things can be absolutely fundamental, given how European legislation tends to work, but as far as I am aware, the relevant sections of the Medical Act 1983 have not been amended to read "relevant European State" instead of "member State". Will the Minister explain the substance behind the amendment and why it is being made? Surely "member States" are easily definable and "relevant European States" less so.
	The amendment may not be so much a "minor drafting change", although it must be thought to be that, given that the phrase is in the explanatory notes. It just worries me that it could be a definitional read-across that it is important to recognise, given that at the moment there is the introduction under European legislation of the 48-hour week. That is having a major effect on how health services can be provided in our country, let alone in other member states. We should have uniformity of definition.
	In answer to a written parliamentary question of mine, a Health Minister recently accepted that there was a great raft of member states that had not agreed to impose the 48-hour limit on the working week of those in the medical professions. We wonder whether a sleight of hand may be behind the issue. As I say, I have no reason to believe anything other than what is in the explanatory notes, but it is extraordinary that we should be asked to replace "member State" with "relevant European State" without an explanation, given that these things often carry such important cross-referencing in legislation.
	Amendment No. 82 ensures that the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence would not be able to take action on the case of any individual in respect of whom there were or had been proceedings before the Office of the Health Professions Adjudicator. We raised the issue in Committee. The Minister contended that he had already achieved that through what was then Government new clause 6. He said the new clause meant that possible disputes about whether the council had the power to consider individual cases would be avoided. Why, then, were the Government unable to get the issue right in the first place? That question is left hanging in the air. The other matters in this group of amendments need not detain us any longer.

Ben Bradshaw: On the removal of the Secretary of State's power of direction over the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, I should say that we did listen to the debate, both in Committee and the other place. We also spoke to the chairman of the CHRE, and we changed our minds. I ended up agreeing with the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on that matter.
	I think that amendment No. 35 was originally tabled by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) in Committee; she raised concerns about the possibility of malicious complaints being made. The amendment is an attempt to address those concerns by ensuring that information must definitely reveal a threat to public safety if it is to be shared. We also made it clear in the amendment that the appropriate Minister, when making regulations under clause 116,
	"must have regard to the importance of avoiding unfair prejudice to health care workers against whom unsubstantiated allegations are made."
	We have been seeking advice from an expert group whose conclusions will be published in the autumn. We will then consult on the principles that will underlie the regulations and guidance and, in due course, on the draft regulations themselves.
	On responsible officers, we provided an outline of the delegated powers memorandum prepared for the Bill—a copy is in the Library—and we will shortly issue a consultation paper setting out in more detail the proposed content of regulations and guidance. I remind the House that responsible officers will not take decisions about a doctor's career. Decisions about revalidation and whether to investigate in fitness to practise cases will still be taken by the General Medical Council, and decisions about employment will be taken by the employer. In addition, we will provide detailed guidance for responsible officers to ensure that they document concerns only when that is appropriate. Doctors will be able to see and challenge what information is kept about them on file.
	The hon. Member for Eddisbury had a couple of queries about some of the technical amendments. On amendment No. 62, clause 162(1)(b), as drafted, provides that order-making and regulation-making powers or amendments to such powers contained in the Bill will generally come into force with Royal Assent. The amendment clarifies that that will not apply to clause 106 and schedule 8, which contain amendments to the order-making power in section 60 of the Health Act 1999. Other provisions in schedule 8 will need to be commenced prior to the order-making power being used and commencement of certain aspects of the provisions, as subject to consultation with Scottish Ministers under clause 166(1). The amendment ensures clarity regarding the commencement of these provisions.

Stephen O'Brien: I appreciate that this is a technical matter, but the Minister will understand that there are commencement dates and people need to make their plans. I may have misheard him, but I think he said that schedule 8 will need to be implemented before the main part of the Bill. That is the first time I have come across that in this House. I assume that a schedule can come into force before the main body of the Bill to which it relates.

Ben Bradshaw: I do not think that that is the case, but I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman with clarification.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about amendment No. 73. The European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) Regulations 2007 amend the heading of section 44 of the Medical Act 1983. We have changed the reference in the Bill to reflect that. It has no effect on the meaning of the provision. The difference that he highlights is that between a European member state and a relevant European state. A "relevant European state" means a member state of the European economic area or Switzerland. The Swiss have certain treaty rights despite not being members of the EAA, including free movement of Swiss professionals and the recognition of their qualifications by member states.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 123
	 — 
	Public health protection

Lords amendment: No. 37.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 47.

Ben Bradshaw: Amendments Nos. 38, 40 and 41 strengthen the safeguards available for those subject to orders by justices of the peace by placing additional maximum time limits on detention, isolation or quarantine. Amendment No. 38 provides for an automatic review every 28 days where an individual is quarantined, isolated or detained under regulations made using section 45C of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 provide for the period of any extension of a measure for detention, isolation or quarantine imposed under an order not to exceed 28 days. There were concerns in the other place that the wording of the legislation could lead to disposal of dead bodies in a less than respectful manner. Amendments Nos. 37 and 39 clarify that where disposal of an infected or contaminated dead body is required, it is by way of cremation or burial. It was also felt that clarification was needed as regards who should be notified when an application for a justice of the peace order is made regarding a dead body. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 deal with that issue.
	Amendment No. 47 ensures that regulations made using the emergency procedure in new section 45R are not subject to the process for making hybrid regulations. That is because the hybrid instrument procedure is a rather lengthy process and would not be appropriate where there is an imminent public health threat. Finally, amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 ensure that the first draft of the regulations under sections 45N and 45L(4), which provide for the making of additional provisions in relation to a justice of the peace's order, are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Anne Milton: I shall start with amendments Nos. 37 and 39, which ensure that dead bodies are disposed of respectfully. The former wording of the clause did not really protect the humane treatment of dead bodies, and I am sure that many in this Chamber would like to think that they will be buried or cremated, rather than disposed of. I would particularly like to thank those in the other place for picking up on this point. Conservatives in the Grand Committee commented that the insensitivity should be addressed, and I welcome those amendments.
	Amendment No. 38 makes available a right of review for special restrictions or requirements
	"imposed by virtue of a decision taken under the regulations".
	Proposed new subsection (6B) would provide that where the restriction or requirement imposed was isolation, detention or quarantine of a person, the maximum period prior to review, and the maximum interval between reviews, would be 28 days. In addition, the review would be automatic for such measures. I fully support that amendment. In Committee, we had considerable discussion about issues relating to detention. I am pleased to see that the Minister has recognised some of the concerns about safeguards on the power to detain, isolate and quarantine people. The measures will restrict periods of detention, isolation or quarantine under the domestic regulation-making power to a maximum period of 28 days before a review must take place. We do not want a situation where people are held in isolation or quarantine indefinitely at the mercy of a periodic review. I therefore welcome the extra safeguards that the amendment will give to the liberties of those detained.
	The automatic review is most welcome, and it will not depend on an application. As I said, considerable concern was raised in Committee about the powers, and I know that organisations such as the National AIDS Trust have particular concerns on the matter. I am pleased that the Minister heeded some of the concerns raised in Committee. There has been a lot of discussion in the House on detention recently, and it is curious in some ways that the measures in this Bill received almost no attention. The powers are quite draconian; they may be necessary in certain circumstances, but we need to ensure that the public are protected.
	Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 will amend the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to limit the period for which a part 2A order could impose detention, isolation or quarantine of a person to a maximum of 28 days. The amendments will also limit any extension of those measures to no more than 28 days, and provide a power to shorten the maximum periods further by regulation. I am pleased that the amendment will restrict the period of any extension of a justice of the peace order for detention, isolation or quarantine to no more than 28 days at a time. Once again, that will help to safeguard the human rights of those who have been detained, and it will protect the public from any miscarriages of justice. Consequently, I fully support that amendment. There is also a provision to shorten the maximum periods by regulation. If there is an opportunity to do so, and the 28 days is not found to be necessary in practice, I hope that the Minister will take up that option.
	Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 47 are largely technical. As someone who has not been a Member of Parliament for very long, I find it disappointing that such technicalities are not ironed out earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said in his remarks on the first group of amendments that much parliamentary time could have been saved by introducing such measures when the detail had been properly worked out.
	The group that we are considering is entitled, "Public health protection", and public health staff will be greatly exercised by the implementation of some of the powers. The number of public health staff working in the NHS has more than halved in the past 10 years, since the Government came to power. In 1997, there were 3,000-odd key non-consultant public health staff, including nurses, nursing assistants and other key public health support workers. By 2006, that figure had fallen to 1,362—a 57 per cent. cut.
	As the amendments point out, public health staff are crucial to implementing some of the powers and ensuring public safety, yet a 57 per cent. cut in staff means that they have less time to exercise those powers. Indeed, in 2002, Derek Wanless served a warning on the Prime Minister that a failure to tackle public health challenges would contribute to an extra cost of up to £30 billion a year by 2022. The Prime Minister's failure to tackle them forced the Government's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson to raise the alarm last July that the country was following the Wanless report's worst case scenario. He noted:
	"There is strong anecdotal evidence from within the NHS which tells a consistent story for public health of poor morale, declining numbers and inadequate recruitment and budgets being raided so solve financial deficits in the acute sector."
	Obesity rates, sexually transmitted infections and substance misuse are all rising. Indeed, since 1997, the proportion of boys aged two to 15 who are either overweight or obese has increased by 33 per cent. I recognise that the Bill contains provisions to do something to address that problem through weighing and measuring children. However, the statistics are shocking. The position has been exacerbated by the Government's abandonment in 1999 of the Conservative Government's targets of reducing obesity rates in the general population to 6 per cent. among men and 8 per cent. among women.
	Figures have recently been produced on sexually transmitted infections. Since 1997, cases of syphilis have increased by 1,654 per cent. Cases of gonorrhoea have increased by 44 per cent., of chlamydia by 148 per cent., of herpes by 17 per cent., of genital warts by 17 per cent. and of HIV by 11 per cent. The Minister may laugh, but I doubt whether it is a laughing matter for those suffering from a sexually transmitted disease or those involved in public health protection who are trying to deal with the problems, which are not only serious but increasing.

Si�n Simon: Surely the hon. Lady is stretching the facts to make a rather cheap partisan point. All the percentages that she cites are recorded increases, which have been recorded because of the massive extra resources that the Labour Government have put into the NHS, unlike the Tories, who systematically bled it dry and almost destroyed it.

Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is interesting that he makes a party political point to knock me for making a party political point. I do not think that he will find that the increase in syphilis is down to extra recording. Syphilis has been recorded for quite some time. The issue is nothing to do with recording. To have sexually transmitted diseases at those levels in this day and age is very serious, and the issue is all about public health protection. On substance misuse, since 1997 the number of alcohol-related deaths has increased by 40 per cent. and the number of young people receiving treatment in hospital as a result of alcohol misuse has risen by 33 per cent. Smoking rates have fallen far more slowly since 1997 than in earlier years. In 2005, 24 per cent. of the adult population smoked, compared with 27 per cent. in 1998.

Si�n Simon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne Milton: I will give way one last time, but the hon. Gentleman failed to make an adequate point last time, so I hope that he will make one this time.

Si�n Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again, but she failed adequately to respond to my point, so I will make it again, even more clearly. Is she seriously saying that if we greatly expand the number of health care professionals, as we have done, they will not inevitably produce, de facto, an increase in the number of recorded cases?

Anne Milton: I am indeed going to suggest that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have listened to my point that public health staff have been reducednot increasedby 57 per cent. I suggest that he check those figures and write me an apology tomorrow, because I am right.
	Furthermore, health inequalities are crucial. Public health staff are the key to doing something about the rising rates of sexually transmitted infections, substance misuse and obesity. Although the inequality gap in circulatory disease mortality has declined and is on track to meet the target, the latest health inequalities figures show that the inequality gap in the infant mortality rate has not reduced by a sufficient amount to meet

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the hon. Lady, but she must ensure that she relates her remarks specifically to the Lords amendments that we are discussing.

Anne Milton: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Lords amendments before us are grouped under the heading Public health protection, and that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the duties placed on public health staff to detain and isolate people, and to protect the public.
	Let me finish by saying that health inequalities can be changed by public health staff. The inequality gap in the infant mortality rate has not been reduced by a sufficient amount to meet the target. The inequality gaps in male and female life expectancy at birth have both increased since the baseline. If current trends continue, the target will not be met. The inequality gap in cancer mortality has declined since the baseline, despite a slight increase in the last period. The minimum requirements for the 2010 target have already been met. However, that is irrelevant, as the meaningful outcome measure is the five-year survival rate.
	Although I welcome the Lords amendments, they place yet more duties on public health staff, who are struggling to meet the already onerous burden imposed by the rising rates of substance misuse and sexually transmitted infections, and, more worryingly than anything else, particularly from this Government, by the rising inequalities in health.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 47 agreed to.

Clause 126
	  
	Administration: Great Britain

Lords amendment: No. 48.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 49, 50, 63 to 65, 90 and 91.

Ben Bradshaw: Lords amendment No. 50 introduces a new clause into the Bill to amend section 164 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which allows the Secretary of State to authorise any primary care trust or other person to exercise the functions of determining authorities in relation to the making or varying of a determination on the remuneration for those providing NHS pharmaceutical services. There is corresponding provision in the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006.
	The Government have repeatedly given a commitment, both in the public consultation and during the passage of the Bill, that the Secretary of State would continue to set the fees and allowances for the national elements of the community pharmacy contractual framework. However, we recognised the concerns raised during the passage of the Bill in this House and the other place that that might change in future. Amendment No. 50 addresses those concerns by ensuring that if, in future, a decision were made to appoint primary care trusts or other persons as determining authorities for the remuneration of those providing pharmaceutical services under section 126 of the National Health Service Act 2006, that may be done only through regulations. There are also a number of related consequential amendments as a result of amendment No. 50.

Stephen O'Brien: I welcome the opportunity to debate this group of amendments. I am sorry that we did not receive any clarification on the health in pregnancy grant in another place. I must express my concern about amendment No. 48, and by extension, amendment No. 49. On the previous group of amendments, the Minister chose not to make any response whatever to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who made an outstanding contribution. I am sorry if we are delaying his teatime, but we hope to get some responses on this matter, as this is our last opportunity to get the Bill right.
	All the amendments now being proposed were initiated by the Opposition, supported by other Opposition parties, even as far back as the Committee stage in the House of Commons, but we are only now debating the proposals, to which the Government have at last acceded. The Government therefore have a serious duty not only to account for their conduct on the Bill but to ensure that the necessary clarifications are in place. They will have no further opportunity to do so, as no ping-pong is anticipated with this Bill.
	Amendment Nos. 48 and 49 will, as the explanatory notes somewhat euphemistically put it, allow the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
	to share information to help develop and refine policies for pregnant women.
	Can the Minister clarify what kind of data he envisages being shared? This proposal seems to add further confusion to the health in pregnancy grant. I will not detain the House by rehearsing the important and extensive arguments that we had in Committeecolumns 455 and followingor in the other place, which showed clearly how little thought the Government appeared to have put into this measure, how little evidence it was based on, and how desperately Ministers seemed to be covering up for the Prime Minister's ignorance, after he told the House from the Dispatch Box that nutrition was most important in the last months of pregnancyGovernment reports confirm that that is not the caseand that this measure would assist that, for which there is little evidence.

Angela Browning: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am trying to imagine what effect this measure will have on our proceedings. Representatives of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs appear regularly before the Committee, and I cannot imagine the kind of questions that I would put to the permanent secretary to find out how HMRC had aided the nutrition of pregnant women. Is that really HMRC's responsibility?

Stephen O'Brien: I dare say that many of us would like to be a fly on the wall, if not in the Public Gallery, of the next PAC meeting when my hon. Friend will have a chance to put precisely that question. It will be interesting to hear what answer is given, in view of the expected responsibilities. It is extraordinary to find ourselves in this situation, not least when the health in pregnancy grant has been tested by having gone through such a lengthy process in both Houses. By his own admission, the Minister found much of the debate on that grant somewhat frustrating. We support it in principle, but we do so on the basis of evidence that it is indeed in the early weeks of pregnancy, and often the time before conception, that is most important for the healthin the broadest possible definitionand the health care of women either just pregnant or seeking to become pregnant. How that will be understood in the rather clinical world of the PAC, I do not know. Like my hon. Friend, I remain fascinated and I remain to be convinced.

Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that although the Government conceded many points in Committee and have introduced many changes, this very issuethe pregnancy grantwas one of the core elements of the Bill, which was quite flawed, yet the Government appear not to have made any substantive changes to it? Does he share my concern that they have failed to address the problems in this crucial part of the Bill?

Stephen O'Brien: I really do, which is why amendments Nos. 48 and 49 rightly raise this issue at this stage of our proceedings. The Government have sought to skate over what they know to be a patent embarrassment, and a patent inability to produce evidence, because they know that the evidence is not there to back up the Prime Minister's statement from the Dispatch Box to a full House that nutrition was most important in the last months of pregnancy. The Prime Minister cannot undo those words or, as Hillary Clinton would say, unspeak them, as they are there on the record. It is difficult to have an explicit debate on a subject which was kicked off on the wrong basis by the absence of evidence for a prime ministerial opinion.
	We have not pinned down the function of the policy. On 6 December 2006, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, said:
	I have received powerful representations
	his normal code for trying to dismiss things that have not come out of his own head
	that in the last months of pregnancy, when nutrition is most important
	I am quoting him
	and in the first weeks after birth, the extra costs borne by parents could be better recognised if we did more to help through our universal benefitchild benefit[ Official Report, 6 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 308.]
	The Treasury has repeatedly refused to make those powerful representations available; it has been asked, but repeatedly refuses to do so. I have asked, but I have had no response, despite a raft of parliamentary questions perfectly properly asking for the evidence that the Prime Minister has specifically and explicitly relied on. Both the Treasury and the Department of Health have failed to provide any evidence that nutrition is most important at those times.
	During the oral evidence sitting, as I am sure the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) will remember, the Minister admitted, in contradiction to what the Prime Minister said, that the evidence suggested that the nutritional benefits specifically to the unborn child were more important earlier in the pregnancy. We agree with the Minister about that.

Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend recall, as I do, that it was openly acknowledged in Committee that the money may not go on food and nutrition, even in the latter stages of pregnancy. It was suggested that the money could be used to pay off debts or buy other household items, so there is no guarantee at all that this money will benefit the unborn child.

Stephen O'Brien: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend, whose memory serves her well. I recognise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I must remain in order in speaking to amendments Nos. 48 and 49, but it is vital to try to find the basis on which this approach and the relevant amendments have been brought before the House, to explain where we are today. I recall what I thought was a rather inelegant parallel when it was said in Committee that Australia had had a similar scheme, which had perhaps rather unfairly been called the plasma payment. It was being paid in the later stages of pregnancy, and rather than being spent on food and nutrition or vitamin supplements, it was used to buy wide-screen TVs. That was a most inappropriate use of something which was introduced for the ends that the Prime Minister is seeking to achieve. It was referred to when we were trying to understand the purpose of the health in pregnancy grant.

Kelvin Hopkins: I cannot accept that giving additional money to expectant mothers will simply be wasted. A high proportion of them will be caring people who want the best for their imminent child, and they will do their best to provide the right nutrients for themselves. Undoubtedly some people will be in debt, but for most mothers, additional money will inevitably spill over into a diet that is a bit better. The hon. Gentleman is rightly saying that there should be a much more substantial increase for expectant mothers and for mothers after the child is born. I certainly agree with the need for much higher child benefit.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping us to recall what happened in Committee. Some of us who were a touch sceptical about the evidence sessions before they took place found that they helped a lot of us understand where the evidence that had inspired the Government to introduce the provisions might lie. That was particularly so in the case of the health in pregnancy grant. We all approached the grant in a benign way, with good will, because we wanted to see it happen.
	The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the grant must be appropriate. Where there are scarce resources, and in particular where extra resources are being made available, they should be targeted at those who can benefit most from that support. Pregnant women are clearly in that category. It is best that resources are well targeted to deliver the best benefit. The evidence we were seeking was where that best benefit would lie.
	Rather than castigating those who might be presumed to misuse the money, on the contrary, I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning)I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard methat I thought it rather rough and unfair for the payment in Australia to be termed the plasma payment. This country should be better able to trust people to do the best for themselves if they are given the opportunity to do so with extra resources. That is precisely what I was seeking to ensure was being said in response to my hon. Friend.
	The big issue is that if there are scarce resourcesif it is not possible to augment the payment proposed by the Government, who have identified what resources they are prepared to devote to the grantwe need to target them in the best way. The evidence does not suggest that it is best to put a nutritional opportunity at the tail end of a pregnancy, which is what the Prime Minister seemed to say when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and that was announced, in effect, by voting the money, or the intended money. Rather, the evidence suggests that it should be provided in the early weeks, and prior to conception. That is the beef; that is the argument. We are all trying to achieve nutritional and health improvements.
	I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are at odds on that. It was helpful that he intervened, because I have been able to make it clear that we are not in the business of castigating people. On the contrary, we want them to derive the best benefit from a potential opportunity. However, in the light of all the discussion, and the evidence to the contrary of what the Prime Minister sought to pray in aid, we believe that what is delivered in the Bill is still based on a false premise. We would be far better off using the evidence sessions, which were designed to help the Committee, to ensure that the best benefit is delivered in the early years and prior to conception.

Angela Browning: The point was made in CommitteeI think that it was borne out by the evidence sessionthat there are fundamentals in the nutrition of the unborn child, particularly in the early months. They include when nutrients, particularly calcium, phosphorous and vitamin D, are needed to lay down the skeletal frame. By the 25th week the internal organs will be well formed, although one would hope that the foetus would gain in weight thereafter. Many of the deficiencies in underweight babies result from lack of nutrient in the early stages. That was clearly stated, yet the Government appear not to have taken any notice of it.

Stephen O'Brien: I bow to my hon. Friend's experience and knowledge. I think that those of us who are men should trespass rather carefully on this area, as much of the expertise is clearly on her side. There is no doubt that the evidence entirely supports what she has said. It would have been better if the Government had had the grace to accept that on this occasion the Prime Minister misspokelet us be kindand that there was no evidence to support what he had said was the genesis of this part of the Bill.
	It is vital for future health that we consider this issue while discussing Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49, because we shall not have a further opportunity to do so at this stage of the Bill's passage. I hope that the Minister will respond, and will not choose to remain in his seat as he did when we debated the last group of amendments. Those who must implement the Bill will then be able to argue for a health in pregnancy grant to be made at the time when it will be of most value. As my hon. Friend will be the first to remember, a series of amendments were tabled in Committeeunder both chairmanshipsrelating to the number of weeks involved. The issue was not whether the grant should be paid when a woman was 25, 24, 23, 21, 16 or even 12 weeks pregnant; it was to do with the pre-conception stage and the very early weeks of pregnancy, the fact that nutritional information was vital, and the benefit that could be derived from it.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have every sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I think we are all trying to move in the right direction. I entirely agree that the earliest stages of pregnancy, immediately after conception, are crucial. It is vital that alcohol abuse, for instance, is avoided at that stage. The difficulty for the Government, however, is that it is not really feasible to award a grant to someone on the basis that she is hoping to become pregnant. I think the best that the Government can do is ensure that expectant mothers are advised to eat properly and not to abuse their bodies, and told that they will receive a grant later which will help them out once their pregnancies are confirmed. The Government cannot seriously provide a grant just because someone is trying to become pregnant.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the practical difficulty, although I do not think it is an impossibility. After all, the NHS funds infertility treatment. That has quite an extensive scientific base. It involves diagnosis, and the assessment of people on the grounds of their wish to start a family, at the pre-conception stage. It is, however, more important for us to recognise thatas the hon. Gentleman also saidit is vital for good-quality assistance and advice to be given to women who seek to become or have just become pregnant, and who are abusing alcohol or drugs either on binges or on a regular basis. Nutritional impetus is crucial at that stage, because it may just provide an opportunity for the surmounting of what could otherwise be a much more serious health hurdle for both mother and unborn child.
	The Treasury has repeatedly refused to provide me with the evidence that I requested, despite the raft of parliamentary questions to which I have referred, and the Department too has provided no evidence that nutrition is most important during the later stages of pregnancy. The Minister admitted that during the oral evidence session.
	Given those policy shifts, I hope that the Minister will now explain exactly what stake Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions have in the grant. In view of HMRC's recent record on data handling, I am surprised that the Government are presenting any proposals that would help it to share data. That seems to be adding fuel to the fire, given its recent reputation and performance.
	What guarantees can the Minister give that this is not simply a power to allow tax inspectors and the DWP's spiesthat may sound pejorative, so I shall say its operativesto harass pregnant women and new mothers? We need to be very careful that people do not feel oppressed by requests for information at what is often a sensitive and vulnerable time in their lives.
	Lords amendments Nos. 50, 63, 64, 65, 90 and 91 make the nationally negotiated elements of the pharmacy contractabout which the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) knows a great deal on the basis of experiencesubject to regulations rather than local determination. They result from an amendment tabled by Earl Howe on Report, and they will give pharmacists business confidence. I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us how she feels that the proposals can be reconciled with the need for a more devolved NHS, particularly in relation to pharmaceutical services.

Sandra Gidley: I do not intend to detain the House for long. I shall confine my comments to the amendments that are before us, rather than those that we may wish were before us.
	I must come clean about Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49. When I first read them, I thought, This is a bit worrying: it effectively allows the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC to share information. Then I realised that that provision was already in the Bill. It is probably remiss of usI hold up my hand as guiltynot to have examined that in Committee. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). As the matter was not discussed in Committee, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the nature of the information likely to be shared, and the mechanisms that exist for the limiting and auditing of information sharing so that the health in pregnancy reason is not given when some other purpose is being served. That would be reassuring, in the light of the public interest in data sharing and data security. If the Minister does not have the details to hand, I am sure that many of us would like to be given the information at some stage.
	I welcome Lords amendment No. 50 and the consequential amendments relating to pharmaceutical services. I should record the fact that I am on the register of practising pharmaceutical chemists, and therefore have a potential interest. I welcome the reassurance that pharmacists will not necessarily find after investing in their businesses that local decisions will not support the services in which they have invested. It is difficult for companies to develop a strategy if numerous different provisions exist.
	We need to be reassured that plans to devolve the arrangements further will be subject to further scrutiny, because the issue is not straightforward. However, people to whom I have spoken who were concerned about the original provision in the Bill are pleased about the amendment, and I thank the Minister for it.

Ben Bradshaw: Like the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), I do not intend to repeat our lengthy discussions on the principle of the health in pregnancy granta principle that the Opposition opposed so strongly that they did not even bother to divide the Committee. I will, however, speak to Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49.
	Clauses 126(6) and 129(6) amend section 122 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and section 116 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. Those were included in the Bill with the express intention of ensuring that both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland could verify that a woman had been given the appropriate health advice by an appropriate health professional, in order to be entitled to the health in pregnancy grant. Work to develop the arrangements for administering the grant subsequently established that both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland in fact already had sufficient access to information under the existing provisions to verify whether the necessary advice had been given. Accordingly, clauses 126(6) and 129(6) are no longer necessary, so amendments Nos. 48 and 49 will remove those provisions from the Bill.

Graham Stuart: The Minister himself has said that, from a nutritional point of view, money would be best spent earlier in the pregnancy. Can he explain why the grant is being given so late in the pregnancy?

Ben Bradshaw: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the  Hansard of the Committee, where we discussed that at great length.
	The work also established that there was no information-sharing system that would permit the disclosure of health in pregnancy grant data for the purpose of further developing social security policy for supporting expectant mothers. In order to facilitate policy development, Government amendments Nos. 48 and 49 add references to the health in pregnancy grant to existing information systems which permit information to flow for a broad range of Department for Work and Pensions activities, including social security policy development. That data would include statistical information such as the number of claims, regional distribution and the stages when claims are made.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 49 and 50 agreed to.
	Before clause 138

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 51.

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 61.

Ben Bradshaw: Members will recall that the previous time this Bill was before the House we undertook to address the issue of the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 following the decision in YL  v. Birmingham city council. The effect of that decision is that residents whose care is publicly arranged do not have those rights we intended to put in place when we introduced the Human Rights Bill into Parliament. These amendments seek to address the immediate impact of the YL case for people receiving publicly arranged care in care homes.
	It remains the Government's view that in general the provision of publicly arranged health and social care should be considered a function of a public nature. The Government will therefore continue to treat those exercising such functions as subject to the Human Rights Act. In particular, it remains the Government's firm view that independent providers of NHS care under the National Health Service Act 2006 are, as the law currently stands, exercising a function of a public nature.
	The Minister with responsibility for human rights has committed to consulting in the near future on how to address the general issue of the definition of public authority in future, perhaps by means of legislation. The consultation process is the place and time to work out which functions should be subject to the Human Rights Act, and to work out how that can best be achieved. I am grateful to all those who have worked with the Government in preparing the amendment. I would particularly like to note the contributions of the British Institute of Human Rights and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The amendment is a step along the road to addressing the issues around the scope of the Human Rights Act, but it is a very important step. It will provide the additional protection of the Act to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I commend it to the House.

Stephen O'Brien: Lords amendment No. 51 makes local authority-funded private or voluntary sector care a function of a public nature under section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act. It is important to note that privately funded individuals will still fall outside the scope of the Act. I would be grateful if the Minister also clarified the position of part-funders, which remains very unclear and therefore of grave concern to many who find themselves in that position.
	Nor does the amendment address the many failings identified in Government policy as regards the Human Rights Act. The Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the subject charted failings, under articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the European convention on human rights, in malnutrition and dehydration, which is a prime example, but also in inadequate assessment of a person's needs; abuse, neglect and bullying; lack of privacy in mixed sex wardsanother serious issue that many regard as a broken commitment by the Governmentlack of dignity, especially for personal care needs; too hasty discharge from hospital; fear of making complaints, a subject on which we touched during discussion of an earlier group of amendments; and age, disability and racial discrimination. Given all that has been discussed about equality matters in relation to recent legislative proposals, that is a continuing worry.
	May I highlight, I hope for the benefit of the House, how important the matter is and set the context to show why the amendments matter and why the process was important. The Bill went through this House in Committee and on Report and then went to the Lords. It seems that that process has moved the Government's position. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who has been a doughty champion for that approach, and to the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), who was often supported by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) in Committee It was important for the Government to listenwe like to think they didto the Opposition's arguments. In this area, the Liberal Democrat spokesmen also made a significant and important contribution. Many of the amendments relating to that area were in their names. The Government seem to have come to a seriously and significantly modified view.
	According to the Government, MRSA affected about 6,000 people in 2006-07, and C. difficile about 56,000. By contrast, in 2006-07, 139,127 patients were discharged from hospital in a state of malnourishment. This is not just a malnutrition issueit is also a human rights issue. The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report The Human Rights of Older People in Healthcare noted that malnutrition and dehydration in care settings breached articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights. Figures cited in the Department of Health's own nutrition action plan show that the cost of undernutrition is estimated at 7.3 billion a year, and a recent  British Medical Journal study reported that about 20 per cent. of patients in hospital are malnourished.

Angela Browning: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend says, but as this legislation brings together health and social care, is he concerned about malnutrition among those, particularly the elderly, living at home with packages of social care, as well as those who are in residential or hospital care? Malnutrition among the elderly can cause not only general unwellness but symptoms that mimic other diseases, and often those diseases are not then identified.

Stephen O'Brien: Precisely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, again from her own experience. That was discussed at some length with the Minister in Committee. Although there was an absence of common cause on the malnutrition issue, we recognised, particularly in the health care setting, where there are some statistics one can get hold of, that it has been extraordinarily difficult to get the under-nutrition, malnutrition, or inappropriate nutrition figures out of the social care settings, whether they are local authority, public sector or indeed private sector. Almost everyone knows that some people will arrive, whether it is into a social care setting or into a hospital setting, malnourished. It could be part of their condition. At the same time, the issue has been the rise in malnutrition among those who leave hospital.
	The thing about social care homes is that we do not have the same statistics naturally, given that we are often dealing with the end of lifeon people leaving to measure whether greater malnourishment has taken place. The weighing and measuring issues, which are addressed in the Bill, are important. Most of us remember from our childhoods that weighing and measuring were a natural first step in almost all interactions with the health or care services, not least in relation to health visitors. That is relevant to an earlier intervention on health and pregnancy. Such issues are vital to the future health of the people of our nation.

Angela Browning: That is particularly the case for the elderly, because as the body ages it does not absorb so well key minerals and vitamins from food, and deficiencies in vitamins and minerals in the elderly can lead to serious health consequences. That applies regardless of whether the elderly are cared for at home with a social care package, in residential or nursing homes or in hospital, where during longer stays there can be serious consequences.

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. Interestingly, her two most recent interventions demonstrate how this point applies at all vulnerable stages of life, both in the early and later years. Some of us rather wish it might also apply in the middle stage, as then there would be some solution to the difficult problem of controlling weight.
	This is a serious issue. It is important that staff have knowledge and training, both in the care setting and in the hospital setting, where nurses are involved. They must recognise the importance of nutrition and have knowledge of it, and they must be able to monitor it. An appropriate amount of time must be available to care for people by ensuring that they eat regularly and eat the right things. People must be monitored for vital nutritional and vitamin values, particularly as an illnessor the condition of ageingoften means that digesting becomes more difficult.
	This is a human right, and we have been anxious to understand how that would have a direct bearing on Lords amendments Nos. 51 and 61. The  British Medical Journal figures that I recently gave reaffirm those provided by BAPEN'sthe British Association for Parental and Enteral Nutritionscreening week, an initiative that the Government claimed to support. However, the Department of Health chose instead to describe the figures as,
	hopelessly out of date or misinterpreted.
	That was a surprise. Furthermore, the Government's own figures, provided to me through a written parliamentary answer, showed that the number of under-nourished patients being discharged from hospital had risen by 84 per cent. since 1997. There has been a further discussion with the Minister on that point, and on what is described as an episode and how the percentages are reached. I acknowledge that there was some clarification of some of these statistics, but I believe that the Minister accepts that there is a vital issue here that must be considered. The question is whether the Lords amendments will be of assistance in respect of this prime example of a matter that is seen as a health issue but is in fact best described as a human rights issue. To do so enables us to define people's entitlement, which in turn gives them rights. Rights confer power and are enforceable, whereas people have their health and care opportunities handed down to them from on high.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend spoke very quickly just now, so I may have misheard. It sounded to me as if he said that there had been an 84 per cent. increase in the number of patients leaving hospital suffering from malnutritionand that in the 12th year of this Labour Government, with a near trebling of expenditure on the NHS. I wish through him to ask the Minister to explain to the House how that could have happened. I agree that being fed and looked after, particularly when one is elderly and vulnerable, should be recognised as a human right, but we need to have practical steps on the ground, rather than just more high-minded rhetoric.

Stephen O'Brien: As I said, there has been some further discussion about the precise way the figure of 84 per cent. was reached, but through written parliamentary questions and the answers to them we realised that this was not just an anecdotal issue of the sort that we as Opposition Members are, of course, always being fed. This became a serious issue, and it was highlighted in Committee. The question is whether the Lords amendments will give us an opportunity to address the issue. I hope the Minister will explain whether the 84 per cent. figure has been reduced, and how that is worked out. What matters, however, is that the trend is very worrying. A health service and social care service should not lose sight of the simple things that are very easy to deal with if the appropriate measures and expectations are in place.

Graham Stuart: On a positive note, may I, through my hon. Friend, congratulate Hull royal infirmary? I recently visited it and raised the issue of malnutrition. It was taking it seriously. It was using a coloured plate system to identify patients at risk and was putting in place a series of measures to tackle the problem and ensure that there is not the increase in malnutrition in hospital in our local area that we have, sadly, seen across the country under this Government.

Stephen O'Brien: I am glad to hear that. I was recently in the Hull, Haltemprice and Howden area, but unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to visit Hullalthough I was, of course, pleased that other positive results came from that part of the world. My hon. Friend raises an important point. I must not get diverted too far from the topic of the amendments, but let me say that the red plate system, or the red tray system of Westminster city council, is a marvellous way of ensuring that those who need extra attention in gaining nutrition due to either lack of appetite or lack of will get that attention. It means that the caring staff have the opportunity to give that attention without the vulnerable person losing face or feeling that they have been singled out, and it works very well.
	There is little evidence that the Government have decided to tackle this problem. Since the new year, they have failed to take the opportunities afforded by the publication of vital signs indicators for primary care trusts, the responses to the payment by results consultation and this Bill to demonstrate their intention to do so. None of the 83 vital signs targets relate to under-nutrition. It has been pointed out to the Department of Health that the lack of recognition for support servicessuch as for nutritionin payment by results acts as a barrier to the commissioning of effective care pathways. Most damning was the voting down in Committee of an amendment that would have put tackling under-nutrition on the same statutory footing as tackling hospital-acquired infections. We could have avoided that situation. I was grateful for the full support that we received for that Conservative proposal from the Liberal Democrats, but, unfortunately, the Government failed to take it up, and we still do not see it. However, I think our rescue may come through the amendments in this group that give us the Human Rights Act application. Our approach should be to come from the human rights angle, rather than for the Bill to put under-nutrition and malnutrition on the same footing as hospital-acquired infections, however important they are. The latest available statistics show that MRSA and C. difficile affected about 62,000 people, whereas the number of people in a state of malnutrition when discharged from hospital onlyforgetting the care settings for nowwas more than double that at 139,127. We are not wrong to be deeply exercised about that, and to be critical of the Government because there is an opportunity to improve the health and well-being of so many people.

Graham Stuart: As it has been recognised that these are human rights, how does my hon. Friend think that particularly vulnerable elderly people could use this right to take action in either a social care or health setting?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend raises an important point, although it would be straying outside the scope of the amendments to address the detail of that, and I am conscious that a Member who might well be able to provide an expert answer and who introduced a private Member's Bill is presentthe hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I think he would agree with me if I were simply to reassure my hon. Friend that what is best for those who both need the rights and may be in a vulnerable positionparticularly in the absence of an independent and trusted body such as the community health councils, which used to be great hand-holders for those charting their way through the labyrinth of the NHS while still vulnerable and in need of itis best summed up by the term an advocate. What they need is somebody who can on their behalf prosecute the chance for them to exercise the rights and entitlements that come from the broad ambit of a human rights approach to these matters.
	Given the wider issues, it is a great shame that we have not had the opportunity to explore this issue, or the legislation addressing it, in depth in a Commons Committee stage. I dare say that that sentiment will be expressed by a number of people who have spent a lot of their time seeking to raise the issue in its broader sense. The Solicitor-General, herself a human rights lawyer, talked out the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Hendon on 15 June 2007. She could have allowed it the detailed scrutiny and consideration of a Committee stageI supported that approach, as I know my colleagues were keen to do. As the Government waited until the Lords stages to table these amendments, we have been denied the opportunity of that detailed scrutiny.
	In discussing this final group of amendments, as the programming constraints that were approved in the earlier motion still give us the time to do, I hope that a couple of hon. Members who have been steadfast in seeking to champion this matter may have the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This particular area may thus be linked with so many of the debates that took place on the private Member's Bill.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly to the amendments, because I had the pleasure of moving amendments in Committee on these matters. At that time, we did not move the Government very far, but I was pleased that the Minister later agreed to meet a delegation, including a consortium of outside organisations, as well as myself and others, to discuss the issues and has moved in a positive direction. I am grateful for that, as I am sure others are.
	The problem we face is that the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to citizens in relation to the state, and that self-funders in private care homes do not have a relationship with the state in that context. It seems that we are moving towards a situation in which the othersthose who are funded by local authorities in private care homeswill be able to exercise their human rights under that Act, as will all those in the few remaining public sector care homes.
	My concern is about self-funders in private care homes. One can foresee an anomalous situation involving two residents in adjacent rooms, whereby one is funded by the state and protected by the Human Rights Act, and the other is not. That would clearly be unsatisfactory, and one would want to see some change. Such a situation arises from two changes that have taken place over the past few years, both of which I opposed. Although it was not opposed by the three major parties, I opposed the large-scale privatisation of care homes. If they were all in the public sector, there would not be a problem; and if all care home residents were funded by the state, as had been recommended by the royal commission on long-term care, there would not be a problem, but such people are in a double bind. One or other of those things does not apply to them, and thus they are in difficulty.
	As I have said many times, in this Chamber and elsewhere, I would like a rapid move towards full state funding for all care home residents, paid for out of general taxation. I hope that at some future stage that will come to passI would like to think it will happen under my own Governmentand I would also like the re-establishment of a strong public sector care homes sector.

Angela Browning: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. Does he recall that comparative standards in residential care in the public and the private sectors were discussed in a Committee evidence session and that, unfortunately, although there are always problems in both sectors, the comparison did not show the public sector in a very good light?

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Lady is right. Individual care homes perform very differently in both the public and private sectors, and since that session there have been public reports of serious failings in the private care sector too. Many people, particularly those who cannot speak for themselves, have been suffering inadequate care. I think that we do not care enough, or properly, for our elderly and vulnerable, and that comes down to resources. The public sector care homes were starved of resources for a long time. Many of them are not modern, and they have been understaffed and under pressure. The local authorities, which have been under the financial cosh for a long time, have been doing their best, but perhaps they have been squeezing funding for care homes to the point where some of those homes have not been very good.
	My own experience of a care home in my constituency, where my mother-in-law spent the last days of her life, was wonderful: the staff were directly employed and lived in the community, and the people in the care home came from the community. The care home was warm, friendly and caring, and my mother-in-law was as happy as she had ever been, given that she was nearing the end of her life.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman might be coming on to this, but he will have heard me say that one of our gravest difficulties in contending with this issue is part-funders. That is because their relationship comes partly through taxpayer support, but their contract is as a private individual in the private sector. Does he have some thoughts on that?

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman raises a further complication. Again, if everyone were fully paid for by the state, that complication would not arise, and that is the direction in which we want to move, but the Government will doubtless have to examine it.
	One Conservative Back Bencher talked about a lack of care in the health sector in general. Although this Government have increased spending on health by enormous sums, our spending levels remain considerably behind those of Germany and France. I believe that the latest figures show that France spends about 2.5 per cent. more of its gross domestic product on health than we dothat is equivalent to 50 million per constituency. If we had spent an extra 50 million per constituency on health in every one of the past 30 years, we would be in a rather different position. Resources are still not as plentiful in the British health service as they are on the continent of Europein Germany and Francein terms of scanners, nurses, beds and so on. I want us to move further in their direction, with even more generous funding for health than we have now.
	I want us to move towards the levels of funding in France and Germany. It is noticeable that in France one does not have to wait to see a doctor or to have an operationI know from friends who live in France that that is the position. I want Britain to be like France; I do not want us constantly to pretend that the situation is much better than it is. It is not as good as it should be, even though it is a lot better than it was in 1997; we have made considerable progress since then. I urge my Front-Bench team to continue to press ahead with additional health service spending and to move towards the levels of expenditure in France and Germany. I am talking about not only the money, but the quality of provision that such funding will make possible.
	We will have this continuing problem with the Human Rights Act because of these anomalies in respect of self-funders. I have never supported the idea of self-funding or private care homes. We need proper funding and democratically accountable local care homes built into the community, where people are directly and permanently employed from the community. I am talking about people whose own relatives go to those care homes, as was the case in the care home in my constituency that I mentioned, which is now sadly closed. There was pressure from government to close a public sector care home because it did not have built-in, en suite facilities and all the other care home standards that the Government wanted. That care home has now gone, and the staff who worked in it have retired or moved on; that body of people who did such a wonderful job is no longer there. May I add that they were all solid trade unionists, belonging to my trade union, the GMB, and that some of them were even members of my party? They were wonderful people.
	That is the sort of care that I want, where people are community-based and there is accountability to the local authority. People should be publicly funded in proper, well-funded care homes that are free to all at the point of need. We are some way from having that, but when we do, the Human Rights Act will apply to all care home residents because they will all be in a relationship with the state in terms of their care. I have made these points before, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not mind hearing them again. I thank him for the progress on this issue and I will support the amendments.

Sandra Gidley: I, too, welcome the amendments, and we should not let the other place take all the credit. It was clear from discussions in Committee that the Minister was sympathetic to the arguments that some of us were making. I was also part of the delegation mentioned by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins). It was clear that the will existed to make the changes, and the Minister regretted that he did not have time to bring it to the Commons because work was needed on the detail.
	The matter of the significant proportion of care home residents who are privately funded is still outstanding. We often give the example of two people sitting side by side in a private care home, one funded by the state and the other not, and the differential between them. That is clearly unfair and needs to be tackled, but the amendmentwhich will affect those who are publicly fundedwill make staff in care homes think about all aspects of human rights, including those raised by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and they are unlikely to distinguish between residents on the basis of how they are funded. The amendment will therefore drive up standards overall.
	We must not be complacent. Some homes do not have any publicly funded residents, but they may have residents who qualify for a contribution to their nursing costs. Presumablythe Minister could perhaps clarify the pointbecause those people are receiving that contribution, the Human Rights Act could be used to redress any problems that they might have. In that case, we may be worrying unnecessarily in some cases.
	I thank the Minister for listening on this issue. It has been raised in several forums, including in discussion on the equality Bill, and I am delighted that we have made progress.

Andrew Dismore: I too welcome the amendments and the remarks made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and his colleagues, who have welcomed this approach to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention. That is a breath of fresh air as we do not always get that attitude from the Opposition on the benefits of that legislation. The hon. Gentleman cited with approbation my Committee's report on older people in health careboth in hospitals and in care homesalthough I do not propose to go through all the examples we described in that report.
	The hon. Gentleman was asked about enforceability and he batted the question over to me. The answer is twofold. First, and most importantly, if the Act does apply in these circumstances, it strengthens the hand of the staff involved in arguing for more resources and better instructions and in standing up for residents against management if asked to do things that are not human rights compliant, perhaps relating to dignity and respect, because of lack of time or ability to deal with a particular patient. Secondly, it enables a general raising of standards, which is the only way we will be able to ensure that the human rights of the elderly are respected, whether in care homes or hospitals.
	The rights will also be enforceable through judicial review. Indeed, the issue arose because of a judicial review in the YL case, in which Mrs. YL was about to be evicted from her care home in Birmingham after a dispute, and the House of Lords found that she did not have any enforceable rights in that case. Luckily, that case was resolved amicably after the damage had been done in the House of Lords, so Mrs. YL did not lose out. The law was however put in limbo by that decision.

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right on those two points, but on the second point, it will be important to ensure that the advocacy provision is properly framed.

Andrew Dismore: I agree, and our report focuses on recognising the fact that using the law through the court process will not bring about the substantive institutional and attitudinal change that addressing the issue through the Human Rights Act should achieve. It can be used as a tool to lever up standards more generally. Advocacyfor example, through the patient advocacy and liaison services in hospitalsis part of that. Indeed, in NHS hospitals we should not have a problem, because they are carrying out a public function, so the patients are already protected by the Act. Examples, such as cases of malnutrition, were given, and good practice has spread rapidly and widely as a result.
	The problem arises in relation to care homes but goes way beyond, and involves the impact of the YL case across what we thought were the public services, but that have been privatised or contracted out. The issue has exercised my Committee, and we have produced two separate reports on the meaning of public authority. Earlier this year, we held a mini conference which was attended by Ministers, non-governmental organisations and others to discuss the best way to try to resolve the YL issue. I have also introduced a private Member's Bill on the issue two years running, and I shall bring it back in the next Session, if it does not become law this Session, to keep up the pressure for wider reform.
	The amendments are very narrow. They would merely restore the positionof care homes onlybefore the YL case, and would affect only publicly funded residents. I think that that would include part-funders because of the way the amendment is phrased, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) suggested, that creates an anomaly whereby two residents in neighbouring rooms could be in different positions vis--vis their legal rights. I suspect that that will not, however, make much difference in practice to the service that they receive from the care home, because it would be very difficult for staff to treat one patient better because he or she was covered by the Human Rights Act, so standards will be generally levered up in any event.
	The issue of the YL case remains unresolved. I tabled an amendment on Report, and my hon. Friend said that the Government would consider it. I am pleased that they did so and tabled this amendment in the Lords. He has been as good as his word in addressing this issue, but the basic problem remains. What is happening is that it is being addressed issue by issue. For example, the other place is considering amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Bill in relation to the applicability to housing associations. In a recent court caseit may be going to appeal so I shall not give detailsthe High Court found that housing associations were covered by the Human Rights Act, but whether that will be sustained on appeal remains to be seen. It is another open question. Every area of public service in which some elements are contracted out or privatised has this problem, but it is only being addressed piecemeal. We need a comprehensive solution.
	The amendment is welcome as an emergency provision to deal with an urgent problem that has arisen out of the YL case, but it does not resolve the overall position for care homes generally or the meaning of public authority. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will be able to give us an indication of the Government's plans for dealing with the general consequences of YL across the piece for care homes and public services more generally. How do the Government propose to consult and take the issue forward and, more importantly, to what time scale will they do that?
	There were indications in the other place that, for example, the original intention behind the Human Rights Act, which was that such cases would be covered, might be under question. For example, on housing, the Minister in the other place suggested that it was never intended that housing associations would be included within the meaning of public authority. However, that was clearly the intention, as shown by the debates in both Houses on the Human Rights Bill.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that a category of private institutions with private funding could be regarded as a public servicethat a group of such organisations might be defined in law as a public service even though they are privately run and funded?

Andrew Dismore: I am not sure that I would approach it from that direction. I would approach it from the other direction, which involves considering the service that is being delivered, its nature and where it comes fromand how it is paid for plays a large part, too. If my hon. Friend looks at my private Member's Bill, which is still livealthough I suspect it will not make much progress in Octoberhe will see that in it I have set out a checklist of factors to consider. The more factors that apply, the more likely the institution is to be a public authority, whereas the fewer factors that apply, the less likely it is to be a public authority. The best way of approaching the overall picture probably is to consider the functionswho pays for them, who delivers them and the nature of the tasks being performed.
	There are a number of different formulations. I do not suggest that mine is ideal, but I come back to the simple point that we must have a comprehensive answer on the meaning of public authority in these circumstances. Although my hon. Friend the Minister's amendment is extremely welcome, in that it deals with the urgent problem of funded care home residents, it does not deal with the much wider issue. We await some urgent announcements from the Government on how they will take the issue further forward. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to focus on that when he replies. I welcome what he has done so farso far, so goodbut there is an awfully long way to go.

Ben Bradshaw: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was hoping to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), but I have just been sent a rather confusing note that slightly contradicts my introductory comments about the timing of the consultation on the scope of the Human Rights Act. I originally said that we would consult on the subject in the near future. My hon. Friend will probably know this better than I do, as he follows these things much more closely, but the note says that we are already consulting. I am sure that I shall be able to write to him with clarification.
	Whether we are already consulting or will consult soon, that consultation is the context in which to have the broader debate about which legislative vehicle should be used and what constitutes a public provision. The bill of rights and responsibilities announced in the draft legislative programmeof which the consultation, whether it has started or not, is partwould provide the legislative vehicle that my hon. Friend seeks.
	My hon. Friend and a number of hon. Members asked about the position of part-funders, about which there is still a misunderstanding. The amendment applies to all whose residential social care is arranged by a local authority; it is not to do with funding. For example, the Government's view is that when a patient receives NHS nursing care, that is already a public function covered by the Human Rights Act, as I said in my opening remarks.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 52 to 91 agreed to.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved. [Mr. David.]

Tony McNulty: I apologise hugely if I detained the House for any time. I had to hang around for about an hour and a half, but, naturally, when the debate was called it was the one time that I had popped out. None the less, to business.
	The international terrorist threat to the UK, our interests abroad and our international partners remains severe and sustained. The Government are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat, including using proscription to prevent terrorist organisations from operating in the UK by inviting support, raising funds or otherwise furthering their objectives. The purpose of the order, if the House and the other place so approve, is to add to the list of 45 international terrorist organisations that are already proscribed. We propose to do so by substituting the proscription of the Hezbollah External Security Organisation with a new listing covering its entire military wing. This is the seventh proscription order made under the Terrorism Act 2000.
	Section 3 of the 2000 Act provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. That is achieved by adding the organisation to schedule 2 to the Act, which lists the proscribed terrorist organisations. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
	The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation only if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If that test is met, she may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. When considering whether to exercise that discretion, a number of factors are taken into account that were first announced to Parliament in 2001: the nature and scale of an organisation's activities, the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom, the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas, the organisation's presence in the United Kingdom and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
	Proscription is a tough but necessary power and its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. The consequence of proscription is that specific criminal offences apply to a proscribed organisation. They include: membership of the organisation; the provision of various forms of support, including organising or addressing a meeting; and wearing or displaying an article that indicates membership of the organisation. Further criminal offences exist in relation to fundraising and various uses of money and property for the purposes of terrorism.
	Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information on the organisation, which includes open source material as well as intelligence material, legal advice and advice that reflects consultations across Government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Decisions on proscription are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that both Houses must consider the case for proscribing new organisations.
	The Hezbollah External Security Organisation, a unit of the military wing, was proscribed in 2001 because of its involvement in terrorism outside Lebanon. We now have evidence that further parts of the organisation are directly concerned in terrorism, which is why the entire military wing, including the External Security Organisation, is specified in the order. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that I am limited in what I can say about the evidence in support of that belief, as much of it is intelligence material and of a sensitive nature.

Michael Ancram: To their great relief and even joy, the people of Lebanon finally have a Government of national unity again. Hezbollah is part of that Government, so what contribution to that peace process does the Minister think that he is making by proscribing parts of that organisation at this time?

Tony McNulty: As far as I am aware, no one who is involved in the other parts of Hezbollah and who is part of that welcome new Government has anything to do with the External Security Organisation or any other aspect of the military wing of Hezbollah. We welcome the advent of the new Government, and at the start of these proceedings, I was very careful to read out the criteria under which we proscribe organisations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that Hezbollah has definitive political, social and humanitarian wings that perform entirely legitimate functions in Lebanon. That is why they are not part of this order. However, given all the information that we have to hand, as well as the advice that we have received and the discussions that we have had, it is right and proper in the context of the criteria set out in the Terrorism Act 2000 that we proscribe the entire military wing and not just the External Security Organisation. We will continue to maintain the distinction between that wing and the humanitarian, social and political parts of Hezbollah.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Minister for giving way again. It is important that we get our distinctions correct. How does he define the military wing of Hezbollah? It is a movement that sometimes finds itself involved in terrorism or violence, but at other times is involved in politics.

Tony McNulty: The right hon. and learned Gentleman takes a great interest in these matters and will know that there are distinct parts of Hezbollah. That is the information that we have. We proscribed the External Security Organisation in 2001, but we now want to proscribe the broader military wing. People involved in aspects of Hezbollah activities that, according to the criteria of the Terrorism Act 2000, are found to support or act as a supplicant to the entire military wing will be dealt with under the offences that I have outlined.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an entirely reasonable point, and it is a consideration that the Government have to take into account. However, the criteria are clear, as are the offences that follow on from them. The evidence that we have is also clear and, in that context, it is right and proper that I bring this order before the House. However, I can say unequivocally that Hezbollah's military wing is providing active support to Shi'a militant groups in Iraq, including Jaysh al-Mahdi, which has been responsible for attacks on both Iraqi civilians and coalition forces. That includes providing training in the use of the deadly explosively formed projectiles used in roadside bombs. Although, as I have said before and for obvious reasons, I am unable to go into the full detail of the evidence, I can inform hon. Members that Hezbollah's support for insurgent groups in Iraq was confirmed when coalition forces captured a senior operative, Ali Musa Daqduq, in Iraq on 20 March 2007.
	Daqduq is a Lebanese national who served for 24 years in Hezbollah. In 2005, he was directed by senior Lebanese Hezbollah military commanders to train Shi'a groups in Iraq. Hezbollah's military wing is also providing support to Palestinian rejectionist groups in the occupied Palestinian territories, including Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The proscription of Hezbollah's military wing will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters. It will signal our condemnation of the support that Hezbollah provides to those who attack British and other coalition forces in Iraq, as well as Iraqi civilians. It will support our international partners in disrupting terrorist activity in the occupied Palestinian territories. It will also send a strong message that the UK is not willing to tolerate terrorism, either here or anywhere else in the world.
	I return to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). The House will be aware that, alongside its military operations, Hezbollah performs legitimate political, social and humanitarian roles in Lebanon. Proscription is not targeted at, and will not affect, those legitimate activities, but it sends a clear message that we condemn Hezbollah's violence and support for terrorism. We continue to call on Hezbollah to end terrorist activity, abandon its status as an armed group and participate in the democratic process on the same terms as all other Lebanese political parties.
	I have said already that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact. Because of that, there is an appeal mechanism in the legislation. Any organisation that is proscribed, or anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation, can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be de-proscribed. If that request is refused the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal that reviews whether the Home Secretary has properly exercised her powers to refuse to de-proscribe an organisation. The POAC can consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions and a special advocate can be appointed to represent the interests of the applicant in closed sessions of the commission.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. Has he consulted his French colleagues on the proscription of Hezbollah? They have invited members of Hezbollah to Paris for talks.

Tony McNulty: With respect, I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my French colleagues have not invited members of Hezbollah's military wing to talks of any description whatsoever

Michael Ancram: indicated dissent.

Tony McNulty: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but there is a clear distinctionnot least on Hezbollah's own termsbetween that organisation's social, political and humanitarian wings, and its military wing. That is very clear.
	Given the evidence of the military wing of Hezbollah's direct support for terrorism in Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories, I believe that it is right that we continue to proscribe the External Security Organisation and that we extend the existing proscription to cover Hezbollah's entire military wing.
	I commend the order to the House.

David Ruffley: Under part 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Secretary of State has the power to proscribe any organisation that commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
	Proscription is a very tough power. Any organisation that is on the list of proscribed organisations is outlawed in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or encourage support for, a proscribed organisation. It is a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or to wear clothing or to carry articles in public that arouse reasonable suspicion that a person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Proscription also means that the financial assets of the organisation become terrorist property and can be subject to freezing and seizure.
	For those reasons, Parliament obviously must take very seriously its role in scrutinising those organisations to be put on a proscribed list. The failure to proscribe an organisation concerned with terrorism could allow it to gain a foothold in the UK, in particular to recruit and raise funds. That would undermine our national security, and I join the Minister in reiterating the Opposition's strong belief that we need tough anti-terrorist laws. That view is only confirmed when we think of the anniversary of 7/7 and the havoc wrought in this country's capital city on that day. Nor must we forget the fear felt by many people in this country when they read news reports of the attempted atrocity in the Haymarket some months ago. Terrorism is a perpetual threat in this country, and Her Majesty's Opposition are strong in their belief that tough laws will be required to protect the public. I know that that is the view of Her Majesty's Government.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the draconian implications of proscription. Does he agree that the ability given to organisations to challenge their inclusion in the list is vague? Should there not be much more clarity about how that can be challenged?

David Ruffley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman but, to be honest, that is not something that I have reflected on in depth. I do not propose to explore that issue or ventilate my thoughts on it in this debate, but it is certainly an interesting question, and I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to it.
	As I was about to say, failure to proscribe an organisation that turns out to be violent and to have terrorist intent could threaten British citizens on our soil, but equally, proscribing an organisation mistakenly or inappropriately could tie up significant resources. The resources available to our security services are, of course, finite, and must be targeted properly. It is important to make that point. This is an important order, and Her Majesty's Opposition will not oppose it tonight. However, we need to understand the Minister's precise rationale for bringing it forward. I put my questions to him in a spirit of honest intellectual inquiry, but I repeat that Conservative Members do not oppose the order.
	It might be useful to recap some of Hezbollah's history, and to say how it comes about that we are debating the proscription of the whole of its military wing in this country. Hezbollah is a political and military organisation. The group was first formed in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The group's military wing, The Islamic Resistance, is believed to have between 500 and 600 full-time fighterssome estimates put the number considerably higherand to be able to call on many more thousands of reserves. During the 2006 conflict in Lebanon, Hezbollah showed that it is armed with rockets that can reach into northern Israel.
	Hezbollah is known or suspected to have been involved in anti-western and anti-Israeli terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombings of the US embassy and the marines' barracks in Beirut in 1983, the bombing of the US embassy annexe in Beirut in September 1984, and the attacks on the Israeli embassy in Argentina in 1992 and on an Israeli cultural centre in that same country in 1994. In 2000, Hezbollah operatives captured three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped an Israeli non-combatant. Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre recently suggested that Hezbollah has a new, additional presence in Iraq, and on 16 April 2008, UN Security Council resolution 1701 was passed, calling for armed militia groups, including the likes of Hezbollah, to disarm.
	I turn briefly to this Government's history of proscribing parts of Hezbollah's military wing. In March 2001, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation, part of the broader military wing of Hezbollah, was added to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000. The order before us, which was laid before Parliament on 2 July, proscribes the military wing of Hezbollah in its entirety; that is the change to which we are invited to accede today. The military wing of Hezbollah includes the Jihad Council and all units reporting to it, including the Hezbollah External Security Organisation.

Michael Ancram: The reason why I am asking questions is that although we might debate the issues in the House in isolation from what is happening in the middle east, Israel and Hezbollah are currently negotiating a very complicated prisoner exchange. Both sides are having to deal with people who find it very uncomfortable to deal with each other. Does my hon. Friend believe that the order will make that negotiation easier or more difficult?

David Ruffley: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that. I will not venture to give an expert view on foreign affairs, a subject that I am not accredited to speak on; I am no expert. It might interest him to know that I was in Damascus during the Whitsun recess with Members from both sides of the House, and heard about the delicate, vital negotiations to which he refers, and which we hope will lead to peace. I venture no view on whether the order will make peace more or less likely, but I hope that he will give us his views on the subject.
	With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister some questions that might assist my right hon. and learned Friend to understand what lies behind the order, and exactly why the Government seek an extension to ban the entire military wing at this particular time, and in this particular way. So that the Minister does not misinterpret what I saynot that he ever does that, although some people think that he misinterprets what I say on a range of security and policing issuesI repeat that we do not oppose the order, so he must not take my questions as an indication of scepticism about the intent of Her Majesty's Government. We Opposition Members are merely trying to understand why the order is being brought forward now, and what the evidence is for doing so.
	When the Prime Minister announced the decision to proscribe the whole military wing of Hezbollah, he gave us some clues to the Government's thinking. On 2 July, in Prime Minister's questions, he indicated that the proposal before us was based
	solely on the grounds of new evidence of its
	that is, Hezbollah's
	involvement in terrorism in Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories.
	I should be grateful if the Minister expanded on what the evidence is to which the Prime Minister referred and said when that new evidence came to light. Does the reference to terrorism in Iraq include any specific threat to, for instance, UK personnel there? Is there any specific evidence of a threat to the United Kingdom, or to UK interests elsewhere?
	The Prime Minister went on to say:
	Proscription will not affect Hezbollah's legitimate political and social wings [ Official Report, 2 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 860.]
	Will the Minister explain exactly how that distinction will work in practice, if the order is agreed and implemented? Will he tell us something about what the political and social wings are, and how the objectives of the political and social wings differ from those of the military wing? The Prime Minister's remarks imply separate wings of Hezbollah that operate independently of one another.
	To what extent does Sheikh Nasrallah's contact with, or control over, Hezbollah politicians in Lebanon figure in what the Government are trying to achieve with the proscription order? I ask because other organisations proscribed by this Government, or by Governments prior to 1997, such as the Tamil Tigers and the Kurdish PKK, had both political and military wings. In those two cases, Her Majesty's Government decided to proscribe the whole organisationthat is, both the political and the military parts. On what basis did the Government decide to proscribe, in this order, just the military wing of Hezbollah? That is an interesting question, given that they went the whole hog in relation to the Tamils and the Kurdish organisation to which I referred.

Keith Vaz: A very good point.

David Ruffley: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I am happy to give way, because I always enjoy his interventions.

Keith Vaz: I am happy to intervene. The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points that I hope to raise if I catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye. The fact is that, previously, proscription has affected not just a part of an organisation, but the whole organisation, and also any groups that may be from the same area. For example, the British Tamils Forum, which is not a supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and does not campaign for it, is affected by the decision that the Government have taken on proscription, so the hon. Gentleman is right to raise those points, and I agree with him.

David Ruffley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to engage in too much high-flown metaphysical analysis, because we are not here to do that. However, I hope that the Minister will address his point, which was also minethat is, how, in the context of the order, do the Government define the political and social wing of the organisation and how do they define its military wing? That is an important practical, rather than metaphysical, distinction that the order draws for us, whether we like it or not. The order is about separating out Hezbollah's military wing in its entirety from its political and social wing. As an honest seeker after truth, I am not clear about how the Government have come to make that distinction. I am sure that the Minister has a good answer; he is well briefed and an intelligent man. If he could enlighten us, we Conservatives would be grateful.
	My next point follows on from that issue. Will the Minister share with us the evidence in his possession about Hezbollah's fundraising activities in the United Kingdom? Are the Government and their agencies taking any steps to identify any such activity? As the order falls short of proscribing the whole organisationpolitical, social and militaryhas the Minister considered whether there is a risk of the fundraising for political purposes, which will be legal even if the order goes through, being diverted to Hezbollah's military activities? I am thinking about the political wing of Hezbollah, a non-proscribed organisation, raising funds quite legitimately after the order has gone through but passing money to the military wing, which will be proscribed by the order. It seems an obvious point, so what thoughts does the Minister have on it? What consideration has been given to the possibility of people getting around the proscription order?
	I also note that, in April, the Minister for the Middle East stated in a written parliamentary answer:
	The UK's policy on contacts with Hezbollah's political wing is based on our assessment of their behaviour and our judgment of whether such contacts would encourage them to move away from violence and play a constructive role in Lebanese politics.[ Official Report, 24 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 2196W.]
	That Minister also said that the UK had had no contact with Hezbollah during the 12 months preceding his reply. Will this Minister confirm whether the Government have had any contact with Hezbollah since April this year, when that written question was answered? Will the Government's position on contact be affected in any way by the decision today to proscribe the military wing? That point follows up what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said.
	Furthermore, will the Minister enlighten us on whether the Government are seeking a Europe-wide proscription of Hezbollah's military wing? Is there support for such a move in the Government? In particular, is the Minister aware of any discussions that the Government have had, are having or are likely to have in the short term with French officials about how the French presidency of the EU could achieve an EU-wide proscription of Hezbollah's military wing in its entirety?
	Will the move to ban the military wing be linked to any specific steps to achieve the group's disarmament? What is the Government's assessment of the UN Secretary-General's statement that Hezbollah's military wing is rearming, and allegedlythe information comes from no more than a report widely available in the mediasmuggling arms across the Syrian-Lebanese border? I do not know whether that is true, but it is what the UN Secretary-General thinks. What is the Government's assessment?
	I shall not detain the House much longer, but my questions need to be answered because people listening to this debate will want to understand the precise rationale behind why the order is being put forward at this time and what the evidence is, particularly with regard to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes said about delicate negotiations, occurring outside this country, on a peaceful solution for the Palestinians in the middle east.
	My questions are intended to tease out the Government's thinking so that we all understand the basis on which they are acting. I look forward to the answers to my questions. I should like to conclude by putting on the record that, in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones has said that we believe that there is a case for a complete ban on Hezbollahnot only its military, but its political wingin the UK. Has the Minister considered my noble Friend's comments, and will he keep them under consideration?

Andrew Dismore: When we debated this issue in 2001, I recall advocating that the then ban on Hezbollahon the external security organisation, as it then wasdid not go far enough, and that, as has just been suggested, we had to proscribe Hezbollah entirely, in all its shapes and forms.
	Obviously, I welcome the extension that my right hon. Friend the Minister is proposing today, as it would include the entire military wing of Hezbollah. However, its political and social wings will not be proscribed and that does not reflect the true operational structure of the organisation. As has been said in interventions, other organisations such as the LTTE and the PKK have been banned in their entirety because of the difficulty of separating out their respective forms of activity. That applies in the same way, if not more so, in relation to Hezbollah. The Hezbollah founding manifesto of 1985 makes it clear that the organisation operates under one common command structure and shares the same goals:
	No one can imagine the importance of our military potential as our military apparatus is not separate from our overall social fabric. Each of us is a fighting soldier.
	A whole series of other quotes make the same point. Sheikh Naim Qassem, deputy leader of Hezbollah, said:
	We are a political party whose top priority is resistance. We believe that our political endeavours are combined with our resistance operations, which cannot be separated from our political activity.
	Mohammed Fannish, a member of the political bureau of Hezbollah, made a similar statement:
	Efforts are made to tempt the Hezbollah in order to hold it back. The objective is not to impair its political role; rather its military wing only. But I can say that no differentiation is to be made between the military wing and the political wing of Hezbollah.
	I am sure that I could give more examples; there is a whole series of them to show that Hezbollah is a unified organisation as far as its command and operations are concerned. To try to draw a distinction between its social, political and military activities is, in my view, to draw a false distinctiona point that I made back in 2001.
	Obviously, I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister has introduced the order to extend the proscription to all aspects of Hezbollah's military wing. He has made a good case in showing the mounting evidence that the military wing has been providing active support to terrorists in Iraq, including in training in the use of improvised explosive devices. He has also shown evidence that the organisation has been supporting Palestinian terrorist groups in the west bank and Gaza, and organisations such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The case in relation to the military wing is absolutely clear, but we must not try to draw a false distinction. The Shura council, the organisation's executive board, is in command of Hezbollah's military and terrorist operations and its social and political activities. Hezbollah operates social programmes in Lebanon, for example, but those are used to rally support among the sections of the population who depend on Hezbollah handouts because of inadequate state provision in those parts of the world.
	As was hinted at by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), funds raised by Hezbollah for such social programmes are often diverted into other parts of the organisation, including its military branches, to help to fund terrorist attacks. That should not come as a surprise to any of us, because that is the nature of terrorist organisations, whether in relation to the PKK, the LTTE or the Irish terrorism that we saw in the 1970s. People went around rattling the tins for the prisoners or whoever it happened to be, but we all knew where it was going to end up. As we have proscribed Hamas in its entirety, we should follow suit in the case of Hezbollah, despite the fact that it also provides these social functions and fields candidates for political office, as in the 2006 Palestinian elections. We would not be isolated in that. The United States, Canada and the Netherlands have proscribed Hezbollah in its entirety, as has Israel, but that has not prevented the sensitive negotiations between Israel and Hezbollah on prisoner exchange.
	The arrangements in Lebanon have significantly strengthened Hezbollah's political hand in that part of the world. It has made a successful demand for a veto of cabinet decisions and makes use of its weapons arsenalanother demand that has been met. That goes against UN Security Council resolution 1701, which called for the disarmament of the group in the wake of the Lebanon war of a couple of years ago. The new political agreement that has been brokered in Lebanon allows Hezbollah to retain arms as long as they are not used to resolve internal political conflicts in Lebanon. Well, we will believe that if we see it. Although the Lebanese Government may no longer be a target, Hezbollah can continue to build its weapons arsenal for use against Israel in future. The Israeli security cabinet heard that Hezbollah now has an arsenal of some 40,000 rockets ready to be fired at Israel, which is three times more than two years ago at the start of the second Lebanon war.
	There is a strong case for the proscription order that we are being asked to approve. I only regret that my right hon. Friend the Minister has not bitten the bullet, as it were, and gone far enough by outlawing the organisation in its entirety, as we have with Hamas and other terrorist organisations that profess to have a separate political wing but in practice are all one. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation through and through and should be proscribed in its entirety.

Jo Swinson: On the same day that this order to proscribe the military wing of Hezbollah was published, the Prime Minister told the House that it was solely on the grounds of new evidence of its involvement in terrorism in Iraq and the occupied Palestinian territories. Of course, we all utterly condemn the violent and terrorist activities that are conducted by Hezbollah. I say to the Minister at the outset that Liberal Democrat Members are in broad agreement with the Government's decision to introduce the order. However, I would like to pose a few questions to probe their motivation in doing this and get a little more information so that the House can come to a clear decision.
	It would be helpful to have more of an outline of why this change in legislation has come about now. What specific activities undertaken by Hezbollah have prompted it? I appreciate the sensitive nature of the issue, but it would be advisable for the House to have the maximum information possible. I think that the Minister saidI hope that he will confirm and clarify thisthat some of the intelligence had been confirmed following the apprehension of a senior individual on 20 March 2007. If so, why has it taken more than a year for the Government to get to the stage of bringing this order before the House? Is it just because the information was gleaned from the individual only recently, or have there been delays for some other reason? On the same day that the order was announced,  The Daily Telegraph reported that some Iraqi MPs had accused Hezbollah of planning and supervising the kidnapping of five British citizens from the Iraqi Finance Ministry in Baghdad in May 2007. Does the Minister have any reflections on the coincidence of those two events and whether they were related?
	While the activities of terrorist organisations must of course be condemned, the Government cannot entirely escape criticism for their role in creating conditions in which terrorism can thrive. Is it not the case that Hezbollah's activities in Iraq stem partly from a fatal lack of planning for the post-Saddam Hussein situation? Iraq has become a magnet for fundamentalists, and the implications of that failure of planning are still unfolding across the entire region.
	Several right hon. and hon. Members raised the issue of definitions. I, for one, welcome the Minister's assurance that the political, social and humanitarian activities will be unaffected, but defining those will prove very difficult, and I would welcome clarification from him as to how that would work in practice. Hezbollah is a highly opaque organisation. It cannot even have bank accounts in its own name, so its finances run through sister organisations funnelling money to a central structure, where it then reaches the military, political and other arms. Finding any conclusive proof that financial support given to Hezbollah from a UK donor has paid for arms rather than social projects will be an incredibly difficult exercise. Last week, a lawsuit was filed in the US district court in Manhattan by Israeli victims of rocket attacks who are seeking $100 million-worth of damages from five Lebanese banks that they accuse of helping to fund Hezbollah during the 2006 war. At that time, horrified by the pictures of the humanitarian problems on our screens, many people gave donations to the relief effort for legitimate charitable purposes and out of a genuine desire to help the people of Lebanon. That case raises problems about how any individuals or institutions that provided financial backing to Hezbollah would be dealt with under similar circumstances in future. Contributors to genuine charitable causes should not be at risk of prosecution for supporting a terrorist organisation. I hope that the Minister can expand a bit further on how the question of definition will be resolved.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Lady is right to address the consequences of proscription. No matter how bad this organisation is, others who support general, charitable causes will be caught within the overall net of what is proposed. Does she agree that there is a general lack of clarity on the issue of proscription and on what other organisations, perhaps not associated with this one, are involved with in supporting the general cause of peace in the middle east?

Jo Swinson: The right hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience in these matters through his chairmanship of the Home Affairs Committee. My point is that greater clarity is required about Hezbollah and its different arms, partly so that innocent people are not caught out unfairly by the legislation. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but I would welcome some clarification as to how they propose to get round these difficulties.
	Under the existing terrorism legislation, there have been no prosecutions of Hezbollah-connected militants in this country. Is that a sign that that legislation has been so successful that we should not worry too much, or was the previous definition proving to be unhelpfully narrow as regards securing prosecutions, while this order is expected to give the Government the extra tools that they need to bring to justice people who should have been dealt with previously? Have there been any Hezbollah supporters in this country who should have been prosecuted but have escaped as a result of the different definition?
	In the international context, it would be helpful to hear the views of our EU partners. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) listed various countries that have proscribed Hezbollah. Are we in step with our international partner countries on this issue, and are they making similar changes to their terror lists on an EU or a UN basis? I look forward to the Minister addressing some of those points, but give broad support to the order.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), raised important points concerning the whole question of proscription and its implications. It is right that Parliament should scrutinise such important decisions. Even though this order will quite rightly go through the House unchallenged tonight, it is the scrutiny that Parliament gives to such orders and legislation that is so vital.
	Following the aftermath of what happened in New York and what happened in London just a few years ago, there is tendency to rush to make decisions and for Parliament to reflect on the consequences afterwards. I do not think that the Government have done that in this case, and I fully support what the Minister said about the organisation in question. In many cases, those of us who are not experts in this fieldalthough I chair the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I do not regard myself as an expert on this matterdo not possess the kind of information and security intelligence that the Minister has. I accept what he says, therefore, and I take it on faith. It is a quiet Tuesday evening, there are not huge numbers of Members in the House, and the order will go through unchallenged by a vote, but the danger is that we will make a decision and look at the implications afterwards.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was right to talk about the draconian effects of proscription. As we can tell from the word itself, proscription cannot be anything other than the most serious judgment on the activities of a particular group. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who follows these matters more closely than I do because of his great constituency interests, is able to reel off information about Hezbollah, which I certainly did not know, concerning who sits on its councils and what they do. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire picked up the information that the organisation does not even have bank accounts, but transfers its money between various sister organisations. All of that adds to the weight of knowledge that we, as parliamentarians, have.
	My problem is not with the order, but with the implications that will become apparent long after it has been passed. The Minister knows about the issue of proscription, because I have raised it with him, and its effect on law-abiding citizens of this country who do not support the terrorist activities of organisations abroad, but believe in the wider cause. The example of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was raised, quite rightly, by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. I have about 10,000 members of the Tamil community, and many Muslims, in my constituency, who would be very interested in what Hezbollah is doing in the middle east. I have many constituents who are concerned about the peace process. The problem for law-abiding British citizens who support the general cause, but do not support terrorist organisations, is what happens if they attempt to hold meetings or events that in some way deal with what is happening in the countries concerned, and Sri Lanka is an obvious example.
	I have been to events organised by the Tamils Forum, with the approval of the Metropolitan police, and subsequently, I received almost hysterical communications from the Sri Lankan high commissioner about my attendance at what Sri Lanka regards as terrorist events. Of course they were not; we do not support terrorism. But they are events that concern members of the British Tamil community, who will be affected by the general nature of proscription. That is why clarity is so vital when we are affecting the rights of British citizens. I am surprised to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, who is the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He is always very eager to talk about human rights, but should remember from his former profession as a lawyer that it is important to preserve the rights of individuals who are not supporters of such organisations, but somehow get caught in the wider net thrown around them because they attend or give at a charitable event, as the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire mentioned.
	On Saturday, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who leads for the Liberal Democrats on foreign affairs, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), who was a Conservative MP but is now independent, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is a member of the Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler) and the former Prime Minister of Kosovo were all at a meeting in Mitcham, attended by 40,000 members of the Tamil community, to talk about the situation in Sri Lanka. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), was not present, but had a letter read out at the event. The LTTE is a proscribed organisation, but the Tamil organisation is not. Police officers were there filming what was going on. I went up to a number of them, just to reassure them that nothing was out of order. The problem with orders of this kind is that they have implications far beyond what the Government intendimplications that affect law-abiding British citizens.
	The last time I attended such an event, I was told by the Metropolitan police that those in every organisation had to sign a piece of paper, invented just before the meeting, confirming that they would not carry out various activities there. I said, How can you just produce this piece of paper? These are law-abiding British citizens. In my 21 years in Parliament, I have never heard of British citizens attending a meeting being made to sign pieces of paper about what will happen there in advance of it happening. My office was told by the police officer that this was now standard practice in view of the proscription that had been decided by Parliament. I did not know that; it was news to me that such forms had to be produced.
	In passing the order tonight, we need to understand what will happen to people who do not support the organisation in question, and who do not believe that terrorism is a means of getting justice in the middle east, but are caught up in the wider net described by other hon. Membersapart from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, who wants the Government to go even further. Other people are genuinely concerned about these issues. At the moment, there are 900,000 people of Arab origin living in the United Kingdomindividuals and extended families. Some have indefinite leave to remain, and some are British citizens. Many take part in different organisational activities to do with the middle east, and are concerned about what happens there. Where is the demarcation line for those people?
	My second point was just made to me, outside the Chamber, by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I told him that I would be mentioning him in my speech, and he reminded me that the Government's original order to proscribe 25 organisations was unamendable. No Member could amend that list, so we could not raise concerns about the implications of the order for law-abiding constituents who did not support terrorism. They want to support the Government in all that they do, as in the excellent work they have done in the past 11 years in trying to suppress terrorism. We could not amend that order, however, and there has never been an opportunity for us to do so. Of course, in future, the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon or the Home Affairs Committee might look at the matter of proscription. However, as things stand, unless an order of this kind is brought before the House, there is no way in which we can scrutinise what the Government are doing in this area or offer fresh information about the implications that such actions have for law-abiding citizens.
	My next point is about challenging proscription. I raised it with the Opposition spokesperson and he rightly said that he wished to concentrate on other matters in his speech, but I hope that the House will consider the subject in future. When an organisation wishes to challenge proscriptionthe Government have recently lost a case in the courts; an order was passed a few weeks ago when the Government had to come to the House and implement the court's decisionthere is no hard and fast, robust way in which to do that. I know that because a meeting was held with the former Home Secretary during which members of the Tamil community asked what they could do so that a distinction could be made between those who wished to pursue terrorist ends and those, like those members of the community, who did not, but wanted to speak about the genuine carnage and violence that is happening in parts of Sri Lanka and to return to the negotiating table, which was so vital to the progress of peace in that troubled and beautiful island. The then Home Secretary said that there were no procedures, rules or guidelines. All that an organisation had to do was write to the Home Secretary and that would trigger a look at proscription. If the request was turned down, people could go to court and there could be a judicial review, which is exactly what happened in the case of the People's Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran.
	Of course, we will go along with what is suggested tonight, because the Minister has presented us with persuasive arguments, as he always does when he introduces such measures. We are always willing to support the Government on such issues because they are so serious and the Government have much more information than we do. However, given that we are entering new territory and that the Government have been challenged in the courts and lost, at great expense to the taxpayer, may not we have some regulations or rules, or some sort of robust scheme whereby organisations can appropriately challenge the Government's decision without having to await such a discussion or an order such as the one that we are considering? May we have a mechanism whereby organisations can challenge and place evidence before the Government? I hope that the Minister will address that when he responds to the debate. What other way is there, other than writing to the Home Secretary and, when she says that the proscription cannot be liftedI would be amazed if she wrote back and said yes to any of the organisations that she or her predecessors have proscribedgoing to court? The recent case went through the High Court to the Court of Appeal and eventually to the highest court in the land. Do we have to do that every single time a Government decision is challenged?
	I urge my right hon. Friend, in balancing out what we are doing today, to consider a more robust scheme, which will enable us to make progress. If we do not, hysteria will grow about organisations and individuals such as members of the Tamil community. It is wrong to stigmatise a whole community, as some in the Sri Lankan Government have done. I welcome the Tamil community's actions in the past few years in politicising themselves and lobbying Members of Parliament. Tomorrow, that community has an exhibition in the House about what happens in Sri Lanka. That is the way for people to pursue their legitimate political grievancesthrough parliamentary democracy.
	I ask the Minister: please consider a more robust scheme that is fair to our citizens. We are talking not about people abroad, but about those who live hereBritish citizens or those with indefinite leave to remainwho pay taxes and vote for people such as the Minister, me and Opposition Members. Let us treat them with respect and ensure that we have a robust scheme, which enables people to challenge what they regard as an unfair law.

Tony McNulty: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the genuine and sincere comments that hon. Members have made. Many contributions have gone beyond the narrow confines of the order, but it might be appropriate and of use to the House if I, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, addressed those broader issues.
	I understand what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) says about organisations that are loosely associated, or not at all associated, with proscribed organisations, but have an interest in broader political issues. However, I part company with him on the notion that there is anything but clarity in the 2000 Act about de-proscribing. Let me briefly describe our experience with the People's Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran. A collectiveif I may use that phraseof Members of this House and the House of Lords took the case for de-proscription to the Home Secretary. I understand that anyone is free to do that, but in the case that I am considering, it was a significant group of Members of this House and the other place. The Home Secretary, in her wisdom, saidI still believe rightlythat we would not de-proscribe. The principals involved then rightly took the matter to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, not straight to a court of law. The commission, in its wisdom, said that the People's Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran should be de-proscribed. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary then took the case to the courts and lost. In the narrowest terms, the process is clear.
	There are problems with organisations that are loosely associated, or not at all associated, with the principal proscribed organisations, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East mentioned. The law deals with some, but others are in a greyer area. My right hon. Friend knows that the second form of proscription undergoes a different parliamentary process and involves laying an order, which is subject to the negative resolution procedure. That happens when the organisation that we wish to proscribe is an adjunct to the original proscribed organisation, which might be described as the precursor. For example, the PKK was proscribed and Kongra-Gel was seen as simply another element of the same terrorist organisation. The latter was proscribed through negative rather than affirmative order, because we could establish evidential connections.

Keith Vaz: I am not clear about my right hon. Friend's comments about the case of the People's Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran. Obviously, de-proscription is almost as important as proscription when people feel that they are subject to an unfair restriction. Is my right hon. Friend saying that, to get an organisation de-proscribed, Members of this House and the House of Lords must approach the Home Secretary? I did not envisage that when I read the vague rules that currently exist on de-proscription.

Tony McNulty: Absolutely not. In the first instance, anyone who objects to proscription can write to the Home Secretary asking for an organisation to be de-proscribed. I made the point about the PMOI because it is the most recent, if not the only, case of de-proscription that was not done by Government but because a group of Members of this House and peers took up the cudgels for it. However, there is no parliamentary process whereby Members of Parliament and peers have to do that. An organisation or anyone who feels that they have been affected by an organisation's proscription may apply in writing to the Secretary of State for the organisation to be de-proscribed. That happened in the case of the PMOI.
	As I said, if the Secretary of State refuses the application, the applicant may appeal to POAC. When hearing an appeal, the commission consists of a panel of three members, at least one of whom holds or has held high judicial office. POAC sits in public, save when considering material whose disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The closed session with special advocates enables POAC to consider material that would be the subject of public interest immunity in ordinary High Court proceedings. The special advocate sees the sensitive material and can make submissions upon it. It is perfectly right and proper that the de-proscription process should be as clear as the proscription process, which is the subject of today's order.
	It is fair to dwell momentarily on my right hon. Friend's broader point, which I take, about community, political and other organisations that clearly do not support terrorism, but which are interested in the same areas of politics. That is a grey area; that is entirely clear. However, I simply say in passing that it must be incumbent on individuals who choose to get involved with either charities or political organisations to make it clear, on their own terms, that they do not support in any way, shape or form any organisation, proscribed or otherwise, that has terrorist intent. It cannot be that everyone is absolved from that responsibility, which should be upon us all.

Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend will know from his constituency of Harrow, East, which has a large and diverse community, how important it is to get the message across. We are talking about a core responsibility of Government, so what engagement is or has been proposed with those community groups that may be loosely associated with any of the organisations that I have mentionedfor example, Hezbollah, those who support the middle east peace process, or those in the Tamil community who support peace in Sri Lankato get that message across, rather than leaving it to community members to work out that they cannot be involved in such activities? I described how difficult it was when such organisations tried to arrange meetings, because they are not au fait with the various minutiae of the law.

Tony McNulty: I take my right hon. Friend's point, but I repeat: there is at least a degree of responsibility on those organisations to ensure that they are au fait with the law and that they are not intent on supporting organisations that have a terrorist bent, whether proscribed or otherwise.
	On the wider issue of engagement, the Government act in the normal fashion, through the engagement of the Foreign Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government with a range of communities, as well as through the Home Office and other parts of the Government, which take those opportunities to tell people, if appropriate, about the Government's prevailing view of particular organisations, especially proscribed ones. That happens regularly. On the specific threat that we face from violent extremism, my right hon. Friend will know, too, that there are a range of issuesprincipally involving DCLG, but also involving the police, under our broad prevent agendaon which we are doing precisely that kind of work, albeit in a more sustained and focused way, particularly in respect of the Islamist or jihadist threat that we face.

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about organisations being able to show that they are distinct from proscribed organisations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) used the example of the Tamil community. The reports that I heard of the event that he attended were very worrying indeed. It may sound very innocent that children had their faces painted as tigers, but more importantly, I heard reports of banners and posters being put up that supported the LTTE operation. My right hon. Friend ought to be aware that there are significant differences in the Tamil community over the LTTE. My constituency party secretary is a Tamil, but her brother was murdered by the LTTE in Sri Lanka before she came here as a refugee.

Tony McNulty: I fear that I will tempt your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I go into too much detail about the byways and highways of one particular organisation. Having said that, I am about to talk about another organisation that is nothing to do with the order, either. However, I crave your indulgence, because hon. Members have raised it.
	My hon. Friend is factually inaccurate about the United Kingdom. We have not banned Hamas in its entirety; we have banned, as we are doing this evening, only the military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades, not the whole thing, for the same reason. However, my hon. Friend is quite right that in some contexts at leastcertainly at the EU levelthe entire organisation is effectively banned, through asset freezing and other dimensions. It is important, too, that, on the broader issue of finance, which hon. Members have raised, we deal with organisations at either UN or EU level, or via the proscribed list, through asset freezing, where possible and if identified, and by notifying all financial and banking institutions, not least in respect of their dealings with charities, that they are under an obligation to refer to us any suspicious activities involving the movement of funds that may or may not be destined for organisations on the proscribed list.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) is entirely right to say that that is not easy. There are often myriad accounts, addresses and organisations, but in the normal course of things, it is our jobthe job of the authoritiesto try to chase the money, to see whether it gets to any proscribed organisations and then to deal with it in the appropriate fashion. However, the task is not straightforward. A proscription order is not a magic wand that makes things any easier. The Charity Commission is clear what its responsibilities are in that regard, as are the financial and other regulatory authorities, but the hon. Lady made an entirely fair point.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire raised an important point, which goes back to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said. I will not go into detail about the meeting at the weekend, but there were also some young children with lions painted on their faces, tooI saw one. But anyway, let us put that to one side. If someone gives some money in good faith to a charitable cause associated with peace in the middle east and, to take the example that the hon. Lady gave, it ends up, through myriad transactions, somewhere that was not intended by the person who originally gave it, surely that person should in no way be held responsible.

Tony McNulty: That is right, and that is reflected in the law, but the key phrase is in good faith. Where the organisationthe charity or whatever elseis clearly directly associated with a proscribed organisation or where it is well established that the organisation is a front, or even where it is proscribed itself, the responsibility is on individuals to establish, effectively, the bona fides of that organisation. However, if someone gives a contribution in good faith, it is not for the authorities, some 24 iterations or otherwise down the line, if we follow the money, to ensure that the original donor is pursued. That is not the purpose of the law at all.
	On the general point about the distinction between military and other wings, the order is carefully drawn, in referring to recognised elements of the organisation. That is why the order calls for replacing, for the reasons that I have outlined, the words Hizballah External Security Organisation with:
	The military wing of Hizballah, including the Jihad Council and all units reporting to it (including the Hizballah External Security Organisation).
	As far as we are aware from the evidence that we have and from the substantive points made by experts, both legal and otherwise, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation, which was proscribed, and the military wing of Hezbollah, including the Jihad Council and all units reporting to it, are recognised elements of the organisation, and it is right and proper to ban them.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who is no longer in his place, was quite right to ask in terms, as did other hon. Members, not only why we should ban just the military wing and not the whole organisationthat is a perfectly fair point, which I hope I am addressingbut why, given what is happening in the middle east, not least in Lebanon, we are proscribing it at all. Those are both fair points, and I hope that I have addressed them.
	We recognise that the political wing of Hezbollah and the political organisation provide a social and humanitarian function in Lebanon. To an established extent, they make positive contributions to Lebanon and other places. In keeping with a whole range of United Nations Security Council resolutions, they provide a positive function in Lebanon and other parts of the middle east. It is to be hoped that the strength of those social and political wings would obviate the need for the military wing to do anything in the first place. We cannot reach a position in which the United Kingdom and others call on Hezbollah to disarm and participate in Lebanese politics as a democratic and peaceful political partyin line with UN Security Council resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701and then somehow put obstructions in its way to prevent it from doing so.
	I believe that there is a fine balance between the military and other elements of Hezbollah but, in this instance at least, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is misguided in seeking to ban the whole organisation. I do not think that it is sufficient to say that anything to do with Hezbollah is terrorist, period. We recognise that there is sharp distinction between the two parts.
	Colleagues have asked me to go into much more depth about the evidence. I am a fair personI thinkand I have tried to outline as much evidence as I could in my opening speech. Were there substantially more evidence for me to share with the House, I would have done so. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire asked why we were introducing the measure now, when the key piece of information that I was able to relay concerned March 2007. I would simply say that we do not take these decisions lightly, and we have to take careful consideration of all the available evidence. I can assure her, however, that the decision is not related to recent events in Lebanon, and certainly not to the coincidence that happened on 2 July in that regard.
	There is a wide range of international positions on Hezbollah. As I have said, some countries, including the USA, Canada, and the Netherlands, proscribe the entire organisation. Australia proscribes the External Security Organisation only, while others, such as France, do not proscribe any part of the organisation at all. As I said earlier, I cannot go into any more detail on the evidence. The ability of organisation so proscribed to be de-proscribed involves a clear and fair process, although I will take on board the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East about wider community groups. I repeat, however, that responsible individuals have responsibilities that go beyond simply endorsing the view of an organisation. With that, I happily commend the order to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together motions 6 to 8.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Companies

That the draft Companies (Reduction of Share Capital) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft Financial Assistance Scheme (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

That the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved. [Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Financial Services

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Committees),
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6996/08, the amended draft Directive on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II); and supports the Government's negotiating position on the Directive which seeks to ensure that it is prudentially sound, provides appropriate protection for policyholders and enhances the Single Market in insurance. [Mark Tami.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Digital Television Switchover

Michael Moore: I am grateful for this opportunity to present this petition on an issue that I have raised with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and to which I hope I will get a positive reply in due course.
	In a few short months, the Borders area that I represent will be the first region to see the switchover to digital television, and a brave new world in which 40 television channels and countless radio channels will be available to people in the area. Unfortunately, however, the many people who are not served by the main transmitter in Selkirk will not receive all the channels; they will receive only what is known as Freeview Lite, which provides far fewer channels and a much poorer service. As a result, 2,500 of my constituents have prepared a petition that I wish to present to the House this evening:
	The Petition of those concerned about the extent of Freeview services in the Borders as a result of digital television switchover,
	Declares that, in November 2008, the Borders will be the first region in the UK to make the switch from analogue to digital television. Many people in this area receive their television picture from a relay transmitter, but after switchover they will not receive all the available channels on Freeview. Instead, they will receive a much reduced service known as Freeview Lite. Many channels enjoyed by viewers elsewhere will not be available to viewers who rely on relay transmitters for their television picture.
	Further declares that this situation is unfair.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to urgently review the impact of the digital television switchover on the Borders area and to take steps to intervene to prevent Borderers from missing out and ensuring that viewers in the Borders who currently receive their television signal from a relay are provided with all the Freeview channels after digital switchover.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000244]

HMRC Workforce Change

Edward Timpson: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the employees of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the Public and Commercial Services Union and others, concerning the future of the HMRC office in Crewe, and all its other offices in the north-west of England. The petition has attracted the support of 52 signatories, and was co-ordinated by the employees of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in Crewe.
	The petition of the employees of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the Public and Commercial Services Union and others,
	Declares that they are seriously concerned about the future of the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) office in Crewe, and also similar threats facing their colleagues elsewhere in the North West of England. The proposal to close this office will mean that local people and businesses will be left without access to these services. They are also concerned about the likelihood of staff affected by the closures being able to find alternative work within the local area, it being unreasonable for them to travel to alternative HMRC sites by public transport for reasons of cost, time and care for their families. They further declare their support for the PCS campaign to keep these offices open.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Government to withdraw the threat of closure to the Crewe HMRC office.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.[P000231]

LISTING BUILDINGS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mark Tami.]

Ann Coffey: I want to start by welcoming the draft Heritage Protection Bill. The Bill aims to set out the legislative framework for a more unified and simpler heritage protection system that will be more open, accountable and transparent. I am pleased that the Bill has been designed to provide more opportunities for public involvement and community engagement in understanding, preserving and managing our heritage. These are laudable aims.
	The benefits of the reforms, as set out in the Bill, are that they will enable us to preserve the historic environment and to manage its transition to the future. My main concern tonight is to ensure that, when it comes to protecting buildings, there is a balance between the past and the future. We must not let our desire to cherish and protect the past jeopardise building for future generations. I believe that more consideration should be given to wider economic and regeneration issues in the listing or designating of buildings.
	At the moment, the criteria to which English Heritage has regard in determining whether to recommend that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should list a building are the architectural and historic value of the building. The majority of listings are carried out in response to applications for individual buildings, which can be made by any individual or organisation. In addition to the listing work that is undertaken in response to applications, English Heritage also undertakes some thematic reviews of particular types of building. For example, in the 1990s, the textile mills of Greater Manchester were looked at in this way, and about five years ago cinemas across the whole of England were examined as a whole.

Fraser Kemp: In my constituency, we have the world's only listed pigeon creeor loft, as they are commonly known. Does my hon. Friend agree that, under the Bill, the heritage, enjoyment and pastimes of the working people should be recognised, and that it should not simply deal with the great stately homes of Britain?

Ann Coffey: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has campaigned on this issue for a long time. I am sure that the Minister will have heard his fervent plea.
	The draft Bill will simplify things by creating a single system for designationto be called the heritage registerwhich will replace listing, scheduling and registering. However, the decision to designate will still be made on the basis of special architectural, historic or archaeological interest.
	During consideration of this draft legislation, I would like other subsidiary criteria such as economic regeneration plans debated and taken into consideration before a recommendation is made to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a building to be designated or listed. Recent frustrating experiences in my own constituency of Stockport have led me to that view. May I make it clear that I am not making any criticisms of the individuals involved? I would like to thank Henry Owen-Jones from English Heritage for his help. The criticisms that follow are of the system itself.
	Those experiences have made me believe that the designating of buildings should be more specific and spell out exactly what should be retained in any future developments. For example, clear descriptions of the materials to be used would enable future developers to tie down and contain costs and know from the beginning exactly what was required of them and how much it would cost. That would prevent expensive proposals from emerging at a later stage, often during informal pre-application discussions with English Heritage, which can severely hold up building projects or indeed jeopardise them altogether.
	As I have explained, my interest in this whole issue arose out of tensions between heritage and regeneration in a multi-million pound development of Stockport college's town centre campus in respect of one particular building. The new campus is to be on the site of the old St. Thomas's hospital, the buildings of which have fallen into disrepair since the hospital was closed. The building in question, called merely building 25, was not a listed building, but because it fell within the curtilage of the principal listed structure, it was regarded as listed. It was attached to a listed building.
	The problem was that English Heritage wanted to keep building 25, but Stockport college did not want to keep it. The college did not think it had any value for its vision of a 21st century educational facility and believed that its retention would compromise the design of the front aspect of its new college campus. As the building was riddled with asbestos, restoration would add further expense to the project. The college had already spent 11.217 million on the refurbishment of listed buildings as a result of pre-planning meetings with English Heritage. As the cost of refurbishment of listed buildings is 16 per cent. higher than the cost of new build, the excess costs were 1.53 million. The college did not want building 25, and the proposed alternatives of boarding it up or selling it were not ones that the college considered to be viable.
	The college recognised the historical significance of the two listed buildings, but felt that building 25 detracted from the overall scheme. The frustration for the college was that it was always trying to discuss matters against a background of historical significance, irrespective of cost to its budget or the need to cater for 21st century learners.
	From a heritage point of view, the college was keeping the best of the site, spending a lot of money on buildings that had hitherto been left to decay with little or no interest from anyone. It was also bringing a 55 million regeneration scheme to Stockport and simply could not go on investing in buildings for which it had no use and that it felt would serve no educational purpose.
	English Heritage first advised Stockport council that it wanted to keep building 25 during pre-application advice meetings, and argument went on for months. The college spent 145,032 preparing a case for demolition, employing specialists in this field and commissioning architectural surveys to respond to English Heritage's aspirations for the site as a whole. The college purchased the site in March and the estimated delay, due to the involvement of English Heritage, is likely to be 12 months.
	The whole affair has added other costs to the project, including 37,500 in staff time and 117,000 in interest costs. It also had a major consequence for the college's cash flow as it delayed Learning and Skills Council approval and the subsequent grants by almost a year. Ironically, English Heritage did not in the end formally object to the planning application submitted by the college, which involved the demolition of building 25.
	From my involvement, which included several meetings with English Heritage, the Government office for the north-west and council officers, it became clear to me that if a building is listed but alongside that listing there is no description of the work that has to be done to preserve its heritage aspects, the developers cannot possibly know the costs that they might incur and, even worse, those costs will become clear only from advice by either local conservation officers from the council or the local representative from English Heritage. That organisation, of course, will be concerned to improve the heritage aspects, but doing so does not come out of its budget; every helpful piece of advice usually costs somebody else money.
	The other difficulty, of course, is that it is not often clear to the recipient of the advice from English Heritage what the status of the advice is. It was clear from my involvement that the college was certainly under the impression that English Heritage was able to exercise some kind of veto on the planning application if its advice were not accepted. That, of course, is not the case. I think there is a need for a much more transparent process for striking a balance between heritage and the need to make buildings fit for the purpose for which they are developed. If, when buildings were listed, the listing were accompanied by descriptions of features that had to be retained, together with acceptable materials for restoration, developers would have a clearer idea of the costs.
	In arriving at such descriptions, some regard needs to be paid to the future use of the building. For example, it is important that we provide affordable housing, but if old buildings are to be converted to flats, every extra cost imposed to meet heritage standards will affect the affordability of the housing. I understand the value of heritage, but it is also important to make buildings fit for purpose in the coming century, so we need an approach to heritage and the listing of buildings that takes that into account.
	I was also concerned that money intended for further education and other public services was being disproportionately spent on buildings that had no national significance, although they had local listings, and, indeed, on buildings that were not themselves listed, but were attached to listed buildings. I do not think it right that money intended for educating young people should be spent on heritage, and there is a case to be made for having separate heritage budgets that can support such restoration work.
	I am also convinced of the need for such a separate budget by another example in my constituency that involves the derelict St George's Church of England vicarage and St. George's Church of England primary school, which are both grade II listed buildings. The Victorian vicarage is set in a large garden and has been disused since 2001; it is boarded up because it has major disrepair and structural problemsfor example, there is no staircase. Groups of children are trespassing and lighting fires inside, endangering both themselves and the surrounding areaa cause of continual complaints to the local police.
	The school and the church diocese want to demolish the vicarage to make space for a much-needed green playing field. At the moment, the pupils have just a concrete playground. However, the conservation officer at Stockport council has told the church vicar that the vicarage windows or doors cannot be broken up or demolished because they are part of a conservation area and English Heritage would object, so we are stuck with a derelict, rotting building that nobody wants, can use or indeed, can properly conserve. That is another example of advice being given at an informal level. The consequences of such advice can be far-reaching. Of course, the Church could put in a planning application that involves demolishing the vicarage, but it is not clear that people understand that this is an option. There is a sense, however unreal, that English Heritage has an automatic veto.
	Meanwhile, the school building itself is in need of some repairs. For example, the roof tiles have recently needed to be replaced. The school governors were told that they had to use a specific quality and colour of slate, and it turned out that the right tiles could be obtained at great expense only from Vermont in the United States. Again, on what basis was that advice given? Where is it said that only those particular tiles could be used? Why should this school use money that was intended for education to buy expensive tiles for something that nobody can see, simply because the building is listed? Surely, when listed buildings are being used, there need to be clear agreements about how the building is to be maintained. The advice should be more transparent, and it should take into account affordability for the user. These sorts of extra hidden costs can come as a shock and can jeopardise the finances and, in some cases, the continuation of projects.
	Three lessons have been learned from the examples of Stockport college and St. George's. First, the criteria for listing buildings should be widened, and more consideration should be given to wider economic and regeneration issues in the listing or designating of buildings. That is particularly important in inner-city and town-centre developments. Secondly, if buildings are listed, the listing should specify exactly what features any future developers would be expected to retain, together with descriptions of the acceptable materials to be used. Thirdly, there should be a separate heritage budget to support such restoration work so that money intended for educating young people, for example, is not diverted away. English Heritage has a statutory obligation to give advice, but with ever more complex applications involving millions of pounds of investment, we need to look again at the process of listing and the balance between heritage, the extent to which developments are fit for purpose and how those decisions are made.
	The right balance has to be struck between the future and the past. Many hon. Members will have examples of derelict boarded-up buildings in their constituencies which have stood vacant for years and which no one can afford to renovate. They are not being conserved at all but just being allowed to decay. Is it not ironic that the listing itself may be a deterrent to development and may lead to decay and eventual demolition of a building that is so significant that it was listed for preservation? However, unless some account is taken of the possible use of a building in the application for listing, I cannot see how the Bill in its current form is actually going to achieve its objectives of preserving our heritage.
	Buildings stand not in the past but in the present. They carry the heritage of the past, but they will not survive unless they can meet the aspirations of the future. Not all can become perfectly preserved museums. They have to be schools, houses or new offices. The process of listing buildings should take account of that, both in the application and when listed.

David Drew: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) has secured this debate. I am even more delighted that we finished the main business a bit early. I am not going to go on at great length, because I do not need to, but I want to take the opportunity to say a few things about the listing process.
	The word listing is seared on my brain. Anyone who knows anything about Stroud will know that we take a special joy in the process of listing buildings. The obverse of that is that I have also talked to people who are close to suicide as a result of some of the implications of what happens when the listing process develops a life of its own. It can have all sorts of repercussions.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport knows that I take a particular joy in the current proposal for C block of Standish hospital, and I hope that she will do the decent thing and not list it. The idea to list it is, to use a parliamentary term, nuts. It is the wrong sort of building for that. It would stop a perfectly good development on that site, which hopefully will be led by the NHS.
	To show that I am not a philistine, I also ask my right hon. Friend to look at the proposal to list the Purton hulks on the River Severn. Those include some wonderful old barges, which were driven into the side of the river to stop its banks eroding. The hulks are of particular interest. I know that we cannot get protection for them at the moment, but hopefully the Bill, which I also welcome, will give us an opportunity to consider something that is of universal importance in the marine world and which we should be doing something about.
	At one level, the process of listing is incredibly democratic. Anyone can put a building forward for listing. That is laudable. It is important that we look at the process in its totality, because it is of great importance, as I said. My hon. Friend said that the process was one of apparent transparency. I am a great fan of English Heritage, because it has saved buildings that were in a dire state of repair and in need of proactive intervention. For example, it has paid an awful lot of money to repair the roof of Stanley Mill in my constituency. It is to be congratulated on that. My only criticism of English Heritage is that it sometimes takes rather a long time to respond to applications, which can lead to difficulties because a building is, of course, deteriorating over that time. Uncertainty can be the worst outcome of all. I ask my right hon. Friend to say something about how, in the new legislative world that we are coming into, we can speed up the process of listing a building. There are occasions when a silly proposal is madeperhaps even a vexatious one to delay the inevitable development of a siteand we need to deal with that more expeditiously.
	In terms of my special interest, the system is fraught with problems if a building has been listed but, over the course of history, some of the reasons for that are not clear and people are left with the problem of how to respond when there is a quite heavy-handed approach. I do not want to cast aspersions on my local authority, but again, anyone who knows anything about Stroud will know that listing is something that we do as a particular joy of life. We take a long time over it and look at applications in considerable detail. However, where those processes take that course, it can be difficult for people who are trying to take forward permitted development. The listing process makes things incredibly complicated and expensive. I hope that the Bill has something to say about that, particularly in view of the joyous phrase development in the curtilage of a listed building. Again, that is seared on my brain because it just means, Look out, chaps. You are going to take an awful long time to get through this, and everybody is going to have an opinion on it, and it is going to take a long time, therefore, to reach some conclusion. That is not fair to someone who is desperately keen to do something with a particular property.
	Much as I see the process as democratic, and one that should be transparent, I hope that we can sometimes speed things along. It is not much good if we find that the process has resulted in the eventual destruction of a building either because it was too expensive to go through the process or, dare I say, because the building was in such a poor state of repair at the end of the process that all we have done is use the process in an adverse way and failed to foresee how we could have dealt with it differently.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will say some interesting things about what the Bill might do to expedite the process of listing, how we might get the process to be even more transparentit is, as I said, democraticand, in particular, how we can list what we should be listing and not list what we should not be listing. We need to tell people quickly that we want to get rid of that system because it is not helpful if the process hangs over everyone's head.

Andrew Dismore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the debate. She has made some extremely important points. I do not want to detain the House for long. I was not planning to speak, but as we have a bit of time, I thought I would mention one or two things.
	It seems that when the listing notice comes through the letterbox, common sense goes out of the window. We need to get some common sense into the process, which is what my hon. Friend advocated. I suspect that we do not have to look any further than this building to see some of the problems that arise. Our staff struggle to maintain it in accordance with the requirements of English Heritage, which often fly in the face of common sense and what we need to do to make what is, in effect, a museum building suitable for a modern Parliament. That is frightening. No one is talking about messing around with the Chamber, but a bit of common sense needs to be applied to how some of the offices and rooms upstairs are maintained and improved, which is prevented by English Heritage.
	I want to mention two buildings in my constituency, one of which is not listed and one of which is. The one that is not listed perhaps ought to be, but everyone is frightened of the consequences of going down that route because of what it would mean for its development. The building in question is the officers' mess in Inglis barracks. The barracks have been the home of the Middlesex Regiment for some time. When the regiment moved out, it was replaced by British Forces Post Office. Indeed, Inglis barracks are named after Colonel Inglis, who was a hero of the Peninsula war and gave the Middlesex Regiment his nickname, The Diehards, from the battle of Albuerabut I digress.
	The officers' mess is a wonderful old building. I am not sure whether it merits listing, but it certainly merits preservation. To its credit, the local authority has been fairly co-operative, but the Army has moved out and the whole site is to be redeveloped to provide at least 2,000, or perhaps 2,500, homes, The question is what is to happen to the wonderful old building at the top of the site. What will happen to the Middlesex war memorial and others nearby? As my hon. Friend implied, if it is listed no developer will be able to make anything of it. It will go to rack and ruin: either it will eventually fall down of its own accord, or it will simply be neglected.
	We are left with a wing and a prayer. We hope that when the site is developed, whoever buys that part of it will find a use for itperhaps as a conference centreand will be able to preserve it without its having to be listed. We also hope that the local authority and the local community will work together to ensure that it is preserved for functional purposes, but that adjustments may be possible that might not otherwise be possible, for reasons cited by my hon. Friend.
	My second example is of a building that has been listed. My constituency contains the site of the former Hendon aerodrome. I believe that it was the first aerodrome in the country; certainly it is the site of the first aircraft factory, operated by a chap called Claude Grahame-White. It is now the site of the RAF museum and a housing estate. There is also a new development on the last unoccupied part of the estateformerly known as RAF East Camp, now known as Beaufort Parkand the developer is putting up a couple of thousand houses there as well.
	The original planning permission for part of the development meant that the then derelict Claude Grahame-White aircraft factory, dating from before the first world war, had to be relocated, lock, stock and barrel, to the RAF museum site. It cost a fortune, and it looks wonderful. The relocation was a magnificent operation. The first world war aircraft collection is housed therebut so is the former RAF watchtower, also a listed building of the highest category. The original plan was for it to remain in the middle of the development and be used as, for instance, a health centre. That idea has fallen through, and the current plan is to move the watchtower to the RAF museum site, which will involve a rather complicated land swap and a very complicated financial arrangement. The developer is putting in the cash.
	The watchtower is almost falling down. It will have to be taken down virtually brick by brick and rebuilt on the site, where it will be used as an education centre. That is a brilliant idea, but English Heritage, perhaps being less co-operative than it might be, is insisting that this derelict buildingwhich will be erected in the middle of a new housing estate, surrounded by big buildingsmust be marketed, and marketed in a particular way. The project will take months to complete, with the net result that a very complicated deal could well fall through, although I hope it will not.
	There is plenty of good will on the part of the museum, the developers and the local authority to ensure that the deal does not fall through, but it could fall through because of English Heritage's ridiculous requirement. No one in their right mind would buy a derelict watchtower in the middle of a new housing estate with which nothing can be done. There is a wonderful function planned for it where it belongs, in the middle of our RAF heritage only a couple of hundred yards away, and it would be restored as part of the process rather than being allowed to fall down. Yet we run the risk of the whole scheme falling to piecesliterallybecause of the approach that has been adopted. Where has common sense gone? A wonderful historic building in my constituency may not be restored and used for a sensible purpose. Moreover, a site that could be used for significant housing development may not be used for that purpose either.
	I think that this is what my hon. Friend was getting at. The current process means that buildings that should be preserved may not be preserved as well as they could be because of developers' fears of what may happen, a point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). When a building is listed, all the attendant hassle can be counter-productive in preventing us from preserving our wonderful heritage, which is what we are trying to do.
	I think that both those constituency examples illustrate the need for a common-sense approach that, unfortunately, seems sometimes to be lacking in the existing process. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure us that the new system will allow for such an approach.

Fraser Kemp: I, too, will not detain the House for long, but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the debate, which is relevant to the draft Heritage Protection Bill.
	I believe that the listing process has, in principle, been very advantageous in guaranteeing the protection of many of our industrial sites. I agree that it should be brought up to date, but I think that without it many parts of Britain would be much poorer. I feel that heritage is important, and like other Members I actively promote it because of its economic benefits. However, there are other stronger, deeper reasons why we promote heritage.
	My constituency is not one that the uninitiated would automatically assume had a range of listed buildings, but it has many, which people might find surprising. A lot of those buildings tend to be industrial. There is the Washington F Pit museum; Washington old hall, the ancestral home of George Washington; and Penshaw monument, which was built to commemorate Lord Lambton, or Radical Jack as he was known because of his support for the 1832 Reform Act. There are many examples in the constituency where listing has helped.
	It would be remiss of me not to mention the brave campaign of the Ryhope allotment holders, who a decade ago won listed status for their pigeon creethe world's only listed pigeon cree. We use the term cree in the north-east, but many will know it as a loft. The honourable Tony Banks, a former Member of the House who is no longer with us, supported and secured that listing. I dread to think what would have happened to that early example of a pigeon cree without it.
	There has been tremendous support for the cree. The men were particularly heartened on Christmas eve when they held a vigil in support of the pigeon cree, and the Prime Minister congratulated them on the 10th anniversary of its having received listed status. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport visited earlier this year and met the men involved. Last week, I received a letter with American stamps on. When I opened it, I found it was from a Hollywood superstar and his wife, who had appeared in panto in Sunderland and had read about the Christmas eve vigil that we held with local children to support the cree. That letter was from Mickey and Jan Rooney, who are still going strong and who are of a ripe old age. They wrote to me, and via me to the men, to say how much they supported the campaign and that they would be more than keen to do anything that they could to help.
	I have given those examples for a reason. In what is a fast-moving world, particularly for young people, listing and our industrial heritage provide a compass point. There are fewer and fewer things that unite us, because it is a disparate world that we live in. Heritage is incredibly important, not just for the physical representation but for what that physical representation means.
	People see the winding gear at Washington F as a symbol. The pit heaps and other traces of our industrial past may have gone, but what lives on through communities is the sense of comradeship and belonging, and the values that were strong in years gone by. That is why I support the Bill that is coming before the House.
	There has been an explosion of interest in heritage. It has been great to see locally that miners' banner groups have been formed in Washington and Herrington Burn and are putting on displays. Local people are getting involved. A local school is celebrating its centenary: last week, I visited the John F. Kennedy primary school, where local children have worked with pupils who attended the school in the 1930s and they have all come together to support their heritage. Heritage is important as it can give us that sense of community. In many ways, changes in society mean that we do not always have as strong a sense of community as we had in the past.

Margaret Hodge: We often have very good debates on the Adjournment and the contributions of all hon. Members tonight have been very important. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the debate. I formally acknowledge in the House the excellent work that she does on behalf of her constituency, both in the constituency itself and in representing her constituents' interests in Parliament. I have discussed with her informally on a number of occasions the issues that she has raised formally during the debate. I am pleased that she has been able to put her concerns on the record. We have a draft Heritage Protection Bill, which the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is currently considering, and I hope that it will take into account the comments of the Members who have spokennone of whom serves on the Committeewhen making its representations to Ministers as we take the Bill forward.
	Let me begin by endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) said. Like him, I firmly believe that, at its best, conserving our heritage, including our industrial heritage, is crucial to building strong communities. Sometimes the best of community spirit comes out of celebrating and understanding our past, and of using that to reflect the values of the present and to inform how we think about the future. Heritage, at its best, has a very important role to play in building identity, cohesion, a sense of community and strong communities.
	Every city, town and village in our country is made up of a collection of buildings that portray how it has evolved over time. There is a duty on all of us in government to make a list of those buildings that are of special architectural and historical interest. The way in which we designate them is intended to allow the planning systemwe will come on to whether or not it worksto protect the buildings and to enable the management of our heritage to be carried out in such a way as to ensure that we leave a legacy for future generations that reflects the strength of our past.
	I want to pick up on various issues raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport, for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), but with particular reference to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. She talked a lot about the transparency of the system. She then talked about our having a clearer understanding of, on the one hand, the roles and powers of English Heritage, with its responsibilities for listing and the listing system, and on the other, local authority planning departments and officers and what they have to do within the planning framework. She also talked about the importance of English Heritage giving a clearer indication, when it lists, of the implications of listingthe features that would need to be listed and retained, and matters on which it would have a view and on which listed building consent to alter the building would be required. She talked about the importance of subsidiary criteria to which English Heritage should have regard in listing decisionsnot just the statutory criteria, which are those of special architectural and historical interest, but also the wider economic and regeneration implications of listing. Finally, she talked about whether we should have a separate heritage budget so that the costs of protecting our heritage are much clearer. I would like to deal with each of those points.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has talked to me at length outside the Chamber about the issues that his constituency faces. He will understand that the hospital issue is currently under consideration, but I will say to him that I have asked that the relevant health authorities also have the opportunity to put in their representations so that I can balance them against the representations of English Heritage. He raised a number of issues that I shall address. One is the importance of marine heritage assets. We address that issue in the draft Heritage Protection Bill, and I agree with him that we will want to bring the management of those assets into the more coherent framework that we are attempting to establish through the Bill.
	Such an approach will allow proper protection and celebration of those assets, which are important in Britain, given that it is an island and is thus surrounded by a lot of sea. I believe that 12 miles of sea is in the ownership of the Crown, so we have to employ a complicated mechanism to ensure not only that the Crown takes its proper responsibilities, but that it is properly compensated for any work that it has to do in protecting marine heritage assets. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that we are examining the whole issue of marine heritage assets and how we can best ensure, in this radical review of how we manage all our heritage assets, that such assets will also get their proper place in the ecology of our heritage.

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend is making an important point; I grew up by the seaside, so I feel very attached to the things that she is saying. Could she say how that approach fits in with the draft Marine Bill, which deals more with the natural heritage around our coastline? Could she say a little about how the two aspects will interlink?

Margaret Hodge: I am conscious of the fact that the two measures have been drafted in such a way as to ensure consistency in our approach, although I have yet to look at the draft Marine Bill to see precisely how those links are properly established. My officials have told me that in the drafting of our Bill, we have been conscious of the fact that two measures are being considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to intervene to make two points. First, I would not want the right hon. Lady to find herself all at sea in terms of what we are meant to be discussing. Secondly, although she was seeking to address her hon. Friend, it would be helpful if she could remember that the microphone is important if her words are to be recorded properly.

Margaret Hodge: I am grateful to you, Mr .Deputy Speaker, for drawing my attention to that point. I certainly want to swim, not sink. I am in slight danger, on this territory, of not yet being totally familiar with the content of the draft Marine Bill, but it is my job, as the Minister responsible for taking the draft Heritage Protection Bill through the process of consideration by both Houses of Parliament, to ensure consistency.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also mentioned the importance of democracy in how we consider whether we should list assets for future generations. I agree with him that, on the face of it, we consider such things in a very democratic way; anybody can ask English Heritage to consider whether to list a particular building. Interestingly, the owner of a building need not be informed that such an application has been made, and, therefore, that the process of considering whether or not to list has been undertaken.

Andrew Dismore: Two different principles are at play here. One hates to see an order made about other people's property without their knowing about it in the first place, but there is always a risk, given the length of time that the process takes, that if a building owner is told that an application to list a particular property is being made, they might knock the building down before the decision is taken. I believe that that happened in a case relating to Kensington town hall a little while ago. One of the real problems that we face is that there is no stop notice arrangement, whereby once an application has been made, it protects the building from demolition while the process is under way. Perhaps my right hon. Friend might think about providing in her Bill that once an application is made, no action can be taken to knock a building down until the process is completed.

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth. The way in which we propose to handle that point in the draft Bill is to ensure that the owner is given the right to know that an application to list has been made. We will couple that with a new provision that once an application has been lodged, no action can be taken to demolish or alter the building until consideration of the application has been concluded. Those two new provisions will ensure a much fairer and more democraticto use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroudapproach.

Fraser Kemp: If certain owners of buildings that may be listed were given warning, the danger would be that some of our heritage would be lost. Some people just lease out buildings. The people who love buildings, look after them and want them listed are not necessarily those who might want to develop a site. The stop notice would need to be coupled with tough and effective penalties and enforcement measures. A 5,000 fine will mean nothing if a developer stands to make millions of pounds from developing a site.

Margaret Hodge: That is a very pertinent observation. My officials and I are currently considering how we should modernise the penalty regime to make it relevant to the 21st century through draft clauses for the Bill. I shall take away that thought. Consideration of the draft Heritage Protection Bill will be the first time in a generation that both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to consider this hugely important aspect of our environment. We are constantly reflecting on how to achieve a balance among the rights of the individual owners, protecting our heritage and facilitating modern development to encourage buildings that are fit for purpose today.

Ann Coffey: My right hon. Friend mentioned how buildings will be designated in the future, and I wish to give her another example. A town such as Stockport will have five or so school buildings from the turn of the last century that are all very similar. An application will be made to list one of those buildings, and it will rightly be listed because of its architectural value. Six months later, another application may be made to list one of the other very similar schools. When applications to list buildings are considered, some information should be provided about whether similar buildings in the area have already been listed. The local authority should perhaps be required to consider all similar buildings and make an application for one of them to be listed. Otherwise, five years later all five will have been listed, but they are all the same.

Margaret Hodge: Some interesting issues emerge as we think about the new regime that we want to bring in to protect our heritage. I have felt in the year for which I have had responsibility for this area of policy that all too often those who are immersed in the world of heritage protection have a distinct view that does not relate to the view of many people with other interests in society.

Fraser Kemp: I know from personal experience about the elite in heritage protection. As I mentioned earlier, because Tony Banks came and visited the site in my constituency he was able to go back, engage in discussion and ensure that it was listed. If he had not been prepared to make a 600-mile round trip as a serving Minister, to see the site and to talk to the people, I am not sure that things would necessarily have happened that way. Does the Minister agree that the Bill needs to include some sort of process? I hesitate to use the word re-education, as it sounds a little Soviet, but there needs to be a wider understanding among the heritage elite that listing is not just about certain types of buildings. It should be about something that represents millions of people, their pastimes and their employment in Britain, too.

Margaret Hodge: I could not agree more with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. Our industrial heritage and working-class heritage are also crucial.
	There is a real difficulty, which we are debating tonight, with buildings of relatively recent construction. On the whole, buildings are not listed according to a thematic review. One would like to get to a position where English Heritage, as the responsible authority, would decide to look at all the schools in Stockport, all the churches in Hendon or all the pigeon crees in Houghton, and would take a view, looking at the matter thematically, about what we should conserve for future generations. At present, that does not happen. We tend to have a spot-listing system whereby a planning application is submitted to demolish or alter a building and somebody with a heritage interest, usually somebody connected to one of the national organisations that are particularly concerned with heritage matters, will submit an application to list.

Andrew Dismore: My right hon. Friend made an important point, which she then started to move away from, about the question of very modern buildings, which might be only a few years old. We have some wonderful architects in our country designing some wonderful buildings. One has only to look at the Gherkin, for example, which is one of my favourites. That ought to be a listed building, and perhaps we ought to list it now rather than in a few decades' time. How do we ensure that our wonderful modern architecture is preserved and that we do not simply end up preserving Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian town halls, for example? How do we ensure that we reflect throughout our listing process the full range of our country's thousands of years of architecture?

Margaret Hodge: During my preparations for tonight's debate, I came across Westminster bridge after having visited Stonehenge today, and thought, I wonder whether anybody has put in an application to list Portcullis House. I do not know what advice English Heritage would give about that building; I am not allowed to prejudge these matters, as I make the final decision. There are some splendid modern architectural buildings, but the judgment that we have to make, which is much more difficult in relation to relatively recently constructed buildings, is about which buildings will be hugely important and which buildings future generations will want to see so that they can understand what life was like in the 20th and 21st centuries. Those are incredibly difficult judgments.
	On the whole, applications for listing, particularly of recently constructed buildings, tend to be for public sector buildings, such as schools.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport asked an important question about the costs that arise when a building is listed and its conservation thus ensured. No consideration is given to the cost or resource implications of listing; indeed, it would be completely unlawful to take them into account.
	People in the heritage world say that buildings should be listed only on the basis of their architectural or historic value or special interest. Listed building consent comes through the planning system, and the decision about whether that should be given is the appropriate context for thinking about the economic implications of a decision to maintain, alter or demolish a building.

Ann Coffey: The difficulty is that consequences follow immediately from the decision to list a building. It is strange that when a decision about listing is challenged, it is said to be somebody else's problem. Surely the intention when listing a building must be to protect it, because it is seen as special. It appears that the very act of listing a building sets off a train of events that means that that building will fall down seven years later because the resource costs of development are too great. The process almost determines that the building will be demolished, not preserved.

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend made that point at the start of the debate, and she is right to have done so. The existing legislation contains provisionswe are proposing similar provisions in the draft Heritage Protection Billso that in the circumstances that she describes, two things can happen. First of all, grants are available from the Heritage Lottery Fund or English Heritage that can be used to support the maintenance and conservation of buildings. Secondly, the draft Bill provides that either English Heritage or a local authority can take responsibility for carrying out essential repairs to conserve the building. The body involved could either meet those costs or pass them on to the building's owner.
	However, our concern is similar to the one that my hon. Friend expressed earlier, and it is that local authorities may be reluctant to take action to list for fear that the cost of repairing or enhancing the building might have to be borne by local council tax payers.

Andrew Dismore: Is it better to have half a cake or no cake at all? That question is at the heart of the argument presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). We have all seen the television programme in which one wonderful building is chosen from each region and then the whole nation votesthat shows how popular this subject ison which should be preserved. As a result, the other 10 or 11 buildings, or however many of them there are, are left at risk of falling down. The programme shows the state of all the buildings, and how urgent it is to find the money to restore them. However, despite all the publicity and national effort, only one of the wonderful buildings shown in each series can be preserved. How many buildings are simply falling down for lack of money? Might not some other approachperhaps a lessening of the restrictionsbe appropriate? That might allow us to succeed in preserving something of a building, even if not the whole thing.

Margaret Hodge: That is an extremely interesting line of argument. I hope that the Select Committee will have regard to the proceedings of the House this evening when they consider what advice to give me.
	I have been reflecting on a whole range of issues, especially in connection with recently constructed buildings and in particular because so many of them have to be funded through the public purse. Let me take an example that will be familiar to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. The old London county council fire stations were all constructed at about the same time, and many of them are splendid parts of our English heritage that we would want to conserve. However, there is a little problem: a modern fire engine cannot get into an old LCC fire station. What can we do about that? Clearly, we want future generations to be able to see some of those fire stations, and to see what wonderful, aesthetically pleasing, architecturally well-constructed buildings they are, and what their historic value iswhat they add to the community. Clearly some of them can be used for other purposes. They could be, and have been, used to create housing units or flats. However, the chair of the authority with responsibility for the fire service came to see meI am trying to think what the authority is called.

Andrew Dismore: LFEPA.

Margaret Hodge: It was the previous chair; this was some three or four months ago. She said, rightly, that there were parts of London where the fire authority had looked for an alternative site for a fire station, to ensure the safety of the local population, but were unable to identify such a site. The result of listing old fire stations would therefore be to put at risk the health and safety of residents in London. In those circumstances, the question that we ask ourselves is whether a thematic review could be undertaken of all the fire stations built by the LCC, and whether we could decide on a few that we wanted to list and conserve for future generations, without feeling that we had to conserve the lot.

Andrew Dismore: Again, that is the halfway house argument. What I was saying from a sedentary position is that the name of the organisation is LFEPA, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Surely there are two aspects to this issue. First, there are fire stations that should be preserved pretty much as fire stations, perhaps even as museums. Secondly, there are buildings that are worth preserving, but with a different function. For example, in Hammersmith there is a brand-new fire station, and the old fire station has been turned into a bar. The faade and the building are still there, but the building has a different function. It is not preserved in the listed sense, because it has been completely knocked about, but there is still something left of it, although the whole lot has not been preserved.

Margaret Hodge: I agree entirely. I cannot find the words in my notes, but at present one cannot have regard to the fact that there are a number of old fire stations, and that preserving and listing a few would be sufficient for ensuring that future generations could enjoy our current structures.
	My hon. Friend talked about the way in which common sense appears to go out of the window in the listing system, and he gave the example of two buildings in his constituency. I have had to deal with watchtowers in a number of constituencies across England in the past few months. I wonder whether, when derelict buildings become heritage assets, there is a point at which we perhaps take the wrong view.
	Let me help with a few facts. There are 2,000 applications every year to list, and 30,000 applications each year for listed building consent. There are only 100 cases a year in which alterations to listed buildings are agreed and buildings are demolished. The system is very slow. English Heritage tries to make a decision within six months, but the process can take longer. As all hon. Members have said, seeking listed building consent is also extremely slowbut there are reasons for the delay. The planning guidance states:
	once lost, listed buildings cannot be replaced; and they can be robbed of their special interest as surely by unsuitable alteration as by outright demolition.
	I hope that the new system will speed up consideration. We are cutting out the duplication, so English Heritage will make the decision. I hope that the process will be much more transparent, that the owners will be notified and that there will be a much better description, in much more accessible language, of what is being listed and why. That would help. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, I undertake to look further at how we can improve transparency. I will write to her about that.
	My hon. Friend talked about the separate roles of those with responsibility for listingthat is, English Heritage representativesand those who give planning permission for listed building consent. We need to improve the professional and public understanding of those separate roles. I undertake to consider that and see what further work I can do, and I shall come back to my hon. Friend. English Heritage has the information, and I agree with my hon. Friend that in the interests of transparency it should be able to provide it.
	We are in much more difficult territory in respect of the criteria for listing. At present, there is a hierarchy of criteria. The statutory criteria relate to historical and architectural interest, and, as we have said, there is no discretion on selectivity. Beneath that lies the planning policy guidance note, which we are reviewing; we will see whether we can have regard to some of the issues raised tonight. Beneath that, English Heritage has introduced selection guides, which provide the technical information demonstrating the features that need to be considered. Again, we can look at that.
	However, if hon. Members wish, as they have suggested, to try to alter the statutory criteria, they will need to do so through the process of considering the Heritage Protection Bill. I have to say that that idea would be highly contentious for many other stakeholders in the heritage world. However, this conversation between parliamentarians and that world is important and needs to take place.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of separate accounting. That is pretty difficult, but I have great sympathy with the motivation for it. Why should money set aside for education facilities be used to protect heritage assets? My hon. Friend's request is fraught with practical difficulties, but I shall have a look at it and come back to her. This debate has been really interesting. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I draw my comments to a close.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Nine o'clock.